•  
  • GabuEx
  • Level: 48 (71%) 
  • Rank: Mr. Domino
  • Member since: May 24, 2006
  • Last online: 12/07/09 7:56 pm PT
  • My Emblems:
    • Moderator
    • General Moderator
    • Popular
    • Greatest Game Hero Bracket Submitter
    • Greatest Game Hero Preliminary Voter
    • Readers' Choice 2009 Chooser
    • The Dread Hallowiener
    • Halloweenmania Scavenger
    • Moderator
    • General Moderator
    • Popular
    • +1 Orator of Distinction
    • Beta Tester
    • Old-School
    • Serious Collector
    • Grandfathered Community Reviewers
    • Vote Rocker
    • Voted Twice
    • Tagger Maker
    • Public Access
    • Video Blogger
    • As Seen on GameSpot
    • Speed Runner
    • Walking Commercial
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Sony Conference.
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 GameSpot Show Addict
    • Player's Ball
    • Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
    • Virtually There: E3 2008 Nintendo & Sony Conferences
    • Virtually There: E3 2008 GameSpot Show Future Outlaw
    • Halloweenmania Scavenger
    • The Dread Hallowiener
    • Readers' Choice 2009 Chooser
    • Greatest Game Hero Preliminary Voter
    • Greatest Game Hero Bracket Submitter
     
     
    Close

My Friends

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky 9.0
The World Ends With You 10
Sonic Unleashed 7.5
Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure 9.0
Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood 7.5
Mass Effect 10
NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams 8.5
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption 9.5
Mega Man Star Force: Dragon 8.0
BioShock 8.5
25May 09

A tale of two religions

It's been a while since my last blog, hasn't it? I suppose I've had a lack of inspiration for things to talk about. But that's changed, and for my first blog in a while, I'm going to be talking about something that I'm 100% sure everyone can get behind: religion.

Ha ha ha!

But anyways.

I recently saw a thread in the off-topic forum that asked a question that I personally consider a very strange one, but which is nonetheless a pretty common one, and loosely paraphrased, it was the following: "Which has caused more harm throughout history: science or religion?" Predictably, there were a number of people who picked the obvious "enlightened" answer of "religion", some being more courteous about it, and a few going whole hog in declaring that the world would be much better if there were no religion.

Those who know me fairly well will know that I'm pretty religious, so one can imagine how I was feeling while reading these messages. But despite my religiosity, I'm not here to preach to the choir and complain about such sentiments. Because, despite my religiosity, I understand them completely. For quite a while, I would have likely agreed with such sentiments, in fact. And having thought about it for a while, I believe that they and I are not so much in disagreement over the facts, but rather in disagreement over the idea of just what religion is.

In short, I think that the ultimate problem in this situation is that there are two distinct and near-polar opposites that are both called "religion".

On one hand, you have the more standard form that people are likely more acquainted with, which is the situation by which people attempt to learn facts about reality through their holy book. This is what I call the "being right" form of religion, the form by which people turn to their religion to learn facts about the world and to figure out the way the world works.

But on the other hand, you have the form that people are sadly less acquainted with, which is the situation by which people attempt to learn instructions about the way in which they should behave in life. This is what I call the "doing right" form of religion, the form by which people turn to their religion to learn not the way the world is, but rather the way the world ought to be. This is the form of religion practiced by figures such as Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King, Jr., people who found within their religion great inspiration and courage to do what they felt must be done in life.

And, far from being two sides of the same coin, I feel that it may even be said that the extent to which one form is present is likely to be inversely proportional to the extent that the other is present. The reason for this is that, fundamentally, no matter how good someone's intentions are, one cannot hope to do what is right without first having correct information to act upon. And - and I am sure this will be met with controversy - those who practice the former version of religion tend to be, well, dead wrong in what they declare about the world. Between ideas such as that the Earth is the center of the universe and that disease is caused by demon possession, the track record of those attempting to glean factual information from their interpretation of their holy book is - and I mean no offense by this - terrible.

From this last fact, many conclude that we ought to just throw out religion as a whole, because, so they say, you can't have one without the whole. But to this I say "not so fast". The idea that religion was never truly intended even from the start to give people factual information is nothing new. Even as far back as the fifth century, you have people like St. Augustine making remarks like this:

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

To summarize what he's saying: the Bible is there to give us instructions; if we interpret it in a way such that it factually contradicts things we ourselves observe, then our interpretation of it is wrong, because that was never the point. This isn't some sort of modern-day cop-out, either; that quote dates to 408 AD.

Unsurprisingly, Christians aren't the only ones who have said such things, either. Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, was quoted as follows:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

So it seems pretty clear, therefore, that an inability to glean factual information ought not to deter someone from adhering to a religion, since the ultimate point is not to inform, but rather to instruct: to tell anyone who will listen how to best conduct themselves in life such that their life is fulfilling and a positive force in the world.

It has also been claimed that this concern with doing right and with spreading love throughout the world is not religion, but rather spirituality. But pretty well all of us are familiar with what we know as the Golden Rule - that we ought to treat others as we want to be treated. It's an interesting fact to note, therefore, that this rule is present in the holy books of every single major religion in existence:

Christianity

"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Islam

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." (13th of the 40 Hadiths of Al-Nawawi)

Judaism

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18 )

Hinduism

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self." (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8 )

Buddhism

"He who, seeking his own happiness, does not punish or kill beings who also long for happiness, will find happiness after death." (Dhammapada 10)

I could go on and list others, but you get the idea. It can perhaps be said that one can arrive at such conclusions without adhering to a specific religion - but, certainly, one can adhere to a specific religion and still come (and in fact be compelled to come) to such conclusions. The Golden Rule is perhaps the most culturally neutral moral statement in existence, and is understood to be sound advice by pretty well every single part of the world.

Thus, I in fact both agree and disagree with those who assert that, for the world to progress, we must turn away from religion. I agree that the first kind of religion must fade away and that we must stop rejecting clearly observed reality in favor of one person's interpretation of a holy book. I do not believe, however, that that interpretation is the root problem. Rather, it is a symptom, with the ultimate cause being fear - fear of the unknown, fear of the world.

Fear of the unknown is perhaps the strongest and most destructive of fears in existence - it is responsible for everything from racism to children's fear of the boogeyman - and I believe that it is this fear, and the inability to accept a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge, that drives people to seek neat and tidy answers from preachers and religious leaders. To say that we must go beyond such things, therefore, is in essence to say that we must stop being afraid of this world in which we live, even if it can at times be scary, and even if our lack of understanding can at times be disconcerting.

On the other hand, however, I could not disagree more strongly that the disappearance of the second kind of religion would be beneficial to the world. This form of religion, far from being borne from fear, is the ultimate acceptance that there are things greater than ourselves, that no human is an island, and that basing our own happiness on others' attainment of happiness is the only way that happiness can become a truly limitless resource. It is the antithesis of fear; it is an unbridled expression of love and a recognition that everything in the world only matters as far as it can increase the amount of happiness found therein. And, far from being the ball and chain attached to the foot of progress that is the other form of religion, this form of religion is the wings on the back of progress that turn otherwise useless knowledge and intelligence into the driving force on a journey to a better world - regardless of whether it comes from belief in God, belief in the beauty of nature, or simply belief in the human spirit.

So, if you ever find yourself confronted with the question of whether or not religion is harmful, or whether or not we would be better off without religion, always remember to first ask the all-important question: which form of religion?

  • Posted May 25, 2009 2:20 am PT
  • Category: Religion
  • 36 Comments

36 Comments

  • CleanPlayer

    Posted May 25, 2009 2:40 am PT

    Excellent Blog. I'm religious as myself, and I use it for inspiration and live stress-free.

  • PAJ89

    Posted May 25, 2009 2:43 am PT

    That was an engrossing read, and I agree with you if I'm interpreting correctly. From what I've taken, the second type of religion is about living a good life, treating others as you would treat yourself without constraining and limiting yourself to literal interpretations of a major religion. I definitely agree with that, and though my thoughts on religion aren't fully formed yet (I do believe there is a God of some kind and I was raised Christian, though I'm not religious in the sense that I don't go to church every Sunday nor read the Bible regularly), this is the idea I've been leaning towards. Is it not enough just to live a life were you treat others as you would yourself? As this blog established, if you strip down most of the major religions, that is what it comes down to.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 25, 2009 5:50 am PT

    @CleanPlayer:

    Thanks.

    @PAJ89:

    Oh, absolutely. I'm a Christian myself, but I strongly believe that the ultimate point of Christianity can be almost entirely summarized in Matthew 7:12 (which I quoted above). I could ramble on about this particular subject for quite some time, but I'll spare you that agony. It suffices to say that I certainly think that one who is Christian ought to be concerned much more with loving his neighbor than with his own salvation - I think there is ample scriptural evidence that says one leads to the other.

    I think it's actually kind of remarkable, really, the way in which that familiar refrain of the Golden Rule is present nearly ubiquitously throughout each religion. It kind of makes me wonder just what we're all disagreeing about...

  • bacchus2

    Posted May 25, 2009 7:03 am PT

    A great and well thought out read, as always. I'm not religious in the sense that I believe in god or gods, but I do believe in some sense of spirituality or karma, and for our capacity to do good.

    Where has your education regarding various religions come from? Or was this just research for this particular blog? While I expect I will probably never 'believe', one of my idle curiosities I should satisfy some time is reading up about various religions.

  • lazyhoboguy

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:35 am PT

    Yea, I am an atheist and the first form of religion is the type I would wish to see vanish. The second type is not so bad, however most people combine both forms of religion into their belief system. Also, I often see how people point out that many religions have some of the same beliefs like the golden rule. Most religions were based off and took ideas from former ones which makes this not suprsing. Christianity and Islam took from Judaism which took from zoroastrianism. But yea, I have no problem with people believing in religion, people can believe in whatever they want unless they start trying to force their beliefs on me.

  • ChiliDragon

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:53 am PT

    @GabuEx
    I'm pretty sure there's something in the third chapter of John that is a pretty important part of Christianity as well.

    Great blog. Not only do I think you are absolutely right, I think it's a shame that no one points out this dual meaning of the word religion more often, or the dual nature of the phenomenon itself. You didn't mention though, the way most people equate "organized religion" with the negative variety, as if only the first kind can be an organized force and have an impact anywhere. I haven't seen the thread, so I don't know how many answers were "organized religion needs to go away!" but I'd be curious to know since that is the answer I most commonly hear. The mindset behind that way of thinking seems to be that whether your faith is of the "being right" or "doing right" kind, as long as you're alone in it and no one has to hear about it.

    I disagree, I think that the "being right" kind of Christianity (or of any other religion) for that matter, not only has completely misunderstood the point and nature of the holy scripture they try to interpret, but has misunderstood a lot more as well. Such as the nature of material versus spiritual, how the world works and what guides it, and most importantly, the role that religion is supposed to fill in the world and in our lives.

    Organized or not, the first mindset is not a well-informed one, and should never be encouraged. On the other hand,. some of the greatest good in the world has been done by "doing right" Christians who pooled their money and resources with a firm conviction that it was their duty to help those who needed help, no matter who they were and what needed to be done. There is nothing inherently bad about organized religion, as long as it's not the wrong kind of religion.

  • Cecil_Highwind

    Posted May 25, 2009 9:03 am PT

    Wow. That should be on the soapbox.

  • ThaSod

    Posted May 25, 2009 9:04 am PT

    Very nice- Religion is supposed to make us better people- science truly does not have this kind of purpose. I think a big problem is that a lot of people would like the world to be exactly like it was when their holy book was written (a bit like a few people who are on the supreme court) rather than allowing their religion to better fit the times.
    I had not realized the golden rule was quite so universal; is there an equivalent guiding principle in far eastern religions as well?
    In a world growing more and more complex and crowded religion offers a more important service than ever- we still feel powerless even with all the technical know how and the release of damaging emotions that most religions of us would make anyone feel better about themselves and enjoy their lives more.

  • Minishdriveby

    Posted May 25, 2009 9:10 am PT

    I completely agree. I'm not really into the organized religion thing that much, but yes I've always thought that the religious books weren't meant to explain how it happens and what happens after but just teach you how to be a good person. However many organized religions haven't taken these words to heart, and this is the cause of most violence. Disagreements over who's right, and god forbid if someone has a different idea. I did like the quote from the current Dalai Lama, Buddhists are pretty cool like that because they accept new ideas and change.

  • JustPlainLucas

    Posted May 25, 2009 11:02 am PT

    Yeah, religion is pretty much what people make it out to be. It's just like a bread knife. It can be used to slice bread... or kill someone.

  • btaylor2404 Site moderator

    Posted May 25, 2009 11:15 am PT

    Great read Gabu. Well thought out and well done.
    B

  • Teenaged

    Posted May 25, 2009 12:46 pm PT

    I admit I didnt quite understand this distinction between the two "types" of religion....

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 25, 2009 2:47 pm PT

    @bacchus2:

    I don't have any formal education; anything I say is what has been just cobbled together over my years on Earth.

    @lazyhoboguy:

    There certainly are some religions that perhaps influenced others, but I don't think one could say that, say, Christianity influenced Taoism very much - yet, both of them still contain the same basic instruction. For that reason I think that the lineages of religions is not sufficient to wholly explain the fact that every single one of them contain this same basic instruction.

    @ChiliDragon:

    An excellent point - I think that organized religion itself is definitely not a bad thing in itself. As I've said on numerous occasions, pretty much all the problems in the world can ultimately be traced to stupid, selfish humans.

    As for the third chapter of John, I could get into why I think that that and the passage from Matthew that I quoted are actually not talking about particularly dissimilar things, but perhaps it would be wise not to derail this comments section into a discussion of Christianity.

    @Cecil_Highwind:

    Haha, well I'm glad you liked it.

    @ThaSod:

    "I had not realized the golden rule was quite so universal; is there an equivalent guiding principle in far eastern religions as well?"

    Absolutely. Though I did not include passages from their respective texts for the sake of space, Taoism and Confucianism both contain variants on the Golden Rule, too - I was not by any means exaggerating when I said that it is a universal rule present in every single mainstream religion in the world. If you're interested:

    Confucianism:

    "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." (Confucius, Analects XV.24)

    Taoism:

    "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien)

    @Minishdriveby:

    Oh, absolutely, I think that there has been a lot of problems coming from people misunderstanding their religious text - but given that many great things have come from people following their religion, too, I can only come to the conclusion that the people are at fault, not in some way the religious text.

    @JustPlainLucas:

    Fair analogy, I have to say.

    @btaylor2404:

    Thanks.

    @Teenaged:

    The distinction is fundamentally what one attempts to find from one's religious text. The first type attempts to find objective, factual information about the world - this includes people such as creationists, who try to glean from their holy text information about how the universe was created and such like. The second type recognizes that that was never the point of religion, and instead pay attention to the instructions for how they ought to live their life.

    Science is only in conflict with religion if one attempts to take the first route - if, on the other hand, one takes the second route, then that person will fully appreciate that religion and science are not opposing forces, but rather are acting in harmony, with science providing knowledge and religion providing instructions on how to act upon that knowledge.

  • ehsan8888

    Posted May 25, 2009 4:22 pm PT

    Religion is often very controversial. What bothers me is when a person goes and preaches on how their Religion is right and how being in another form of Religion is wrong. And I often think that that person may say that they are an example of Religion, but they're wrong. Religion is about helping the fellow brother and uncovering the mysteries of life and salvation, and finally faith and acceptance. I also have read both the Koran and Bible, and saw that though there are differences, they both have the same premise. Excellent read.

  • Vinolence

    Posted May 25, 2009 5:32 pm PT

    Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

    Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

    Actually, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and post the whole thing:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

    You may be able to find a few verses that preach nonviolence, but that doesn't paint the beliefs of the entire religion at all. I'm not religious -- never have been, never will be -- and I subscribe to the idea of good old-fashioned decency, and an acceptance of the fact that humans can't figure out the universe's true origin just yet.

  • vito_128

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:17 pm PT

    Gabu as one religous man to another, I think you have got it spot on.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:31 pm PT

    @Vinolence:

    No offense, but I'm wondering if you've actually read the surrounding verses for context, or if you've just copied and pasted that from another source that presented it as you've presented it.

    For the first one, if you had read Sura 8 in its entirety, you would have surely found verse 61 immediately following what you've quoted there. Here is the full text in all its appropriate context:

    "You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous. Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed. When you are betrayed by a group of people, you shall mobilize against them in the same manner. GOD does not love the betrayers. Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape. You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice. If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." (Sura 8:56-61)

    The entirety of Sura 8 is not speaking of civilian Muslims, but rather specifically of Muslims in a time of war, and it is talking about "unbelievers" in terms of those who are treacherous, not in terms of all those who are not Muslim - and even then, it tells them that they must only fight for as long as the enemy is a threat, and that they must accept peace and fight no longer if their enemy no longer wishes to fight. To present this as if it were instructions for ordinary Muslims in their daily lives is to fundamentally misunderstand its entire purpose.

    The second one is no different. Again, here is the broader context:

    "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!' Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan." (Surah 4:25-26)

    It's rather obvious that this is *not* talking by any means about taking up arms against innocent Christians or whatnot, but rather it is talking about acting in a righteous manner and fighting against injustice and oppression in the world - nearly the polar opposite of what it's being presented as.

    I could go on and discuss the other stuff in that link, but I think you get the idea. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just copied and pasted that from another website and were not intending to misrepresent the Qur'an - but, really, you owe it to yourself and your own intellect to truly study something before you pass judgment on it. As can be seen rather strongly from the above, it is very easy to drastically misunderstand something if you are only operating with bite-size pieces rather than with full knowledge of the whole.

  • raahsnavj

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:33 pm PT

    Religion to me is what you turn to when science doesn't have an answer. And to be clear, answer does not mean theory.

    In the long run though I believe true religion and science will eventually merge into 100% facts... but it will probably take forever to figure it all out.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:44 pm PT

    @vito_128:

    Haha, glad to hear it.

    @raahsnavj:

    Well, I'm not really quite sure about that... I've heard it said that religion picks up where science can go no further, but I don't think that's actually the case; rather, I believe it is more the case that religion fills in what science can never answer. Science can tell you the way things are, but it can never tell you the way things ought to be.

  • raahsnavj

    Posted May 25, 2009 8:55 pm PT

    @gabu - well, maybe God just happens to be someone that has master the sciences, knows exactly how one can live to be happy and progress, and loves us enough to share it.

    I also think that before one knows the sciences it is much easier for them to believe in a higher power. As one progresses in their life and knowledge the eventually hit a wall where it looks like the two conflict and they choose instead of seeing how they actually match.

    But I do agree. Science doesn't seem to have the ability to tell us how we 'should' behave, but rather only gives us hind-sight. however, once again, this coensides with religion as the true religion will eventually be backed by the scientific facts.

    I still don't worry much that we won't figure it out in our lives or our kids, or their kids...

  • ehsan8888

    Posted May 25, 2009 10:43 pm PT

    Vinolence: No offense, but you really got it wrong. I looked at that website and those verses are just handpicked to make our culture look like a bunch of savages. As a Muslim I am deeply offended by this.

    The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to h**** if they do not join the slaughter.- okay that first part is way off. I have never come across a part in the Qur'an promoting to kill non-believers. And also, "non-believers of what? God? They all on God, just with a different name. God, Allah, Yahweh, Khodah, they are all the same to me.

    A few months after the farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and suffered for several days with head pain and weakness. He died on Monday, June 8, 632, in Medina. He is buried where he died which was in his wife Aisha's house and is now housed within the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina.[14][140][141] Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. PROOF that Muslims did believe in other Religions, thus erasing the friction of two different Religions, and showing that the paragraph from the website does not comply with our Religion.

    These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text (as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.- So now off to Mohammad eh? Actually my name is Mohammed. Okay the history says that the bloodline of Mohammad were soldiers who DEFENDED their nations and were often HARASSED and had to DEFEND THEMSELVES. Mohammad was a good man and never tried to kill for no reason.

    Here is a passage from Wikipedia:
    Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly. To escape persecution Muhammad and his followers migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622 CE. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca. In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from his Farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. By the time of his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam; and he united the tribes of Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.

    As you can see, Mohammad was harassed by many people and his followers, Ali and many more have been harassed by the people who did not like his words. My final words are that as I grew up my parents have taught me Morality and how to love one another no matter how bad they treat you, the same way God shows us. In the beginning of the Qur'an, it states "In the name of God, the compassionate and merciful." Have you noticed something, how can our God who is so compassionate and merciful be able to make such hate as suggested above? There is no way. Next time read the Qur'an and Bible, and make your points, not from propaganda like that website.

    @Gabu: Have you read the Qur'an, because you seem to get the verses spot-on. Sorry I took so much space, I just had to make my point.

  • Teenaged

    Posted May 25, 2009 11:19 pm PT

    Ok I got it Gabu. Thanks.
    I agree.

  • Author_Jerry

    Posted May 26, 2009 4:53 am PT

    @GabuEx: I quote: "So it seems pretty clear, therefore, that an inability to glean factual information ought not to deter someone from adhering to a religion, since the ultimate point is not to inform, but rather to instruct . . . "

    I'd like to add that St. Augustine was Catholic, and that what he said is in total conformity to his Catholic beliefs. Catholicism informs and instructs. It's not one over the other. I know you may not have implied this, but I thought I should point it out, because you seem to put St. Augustine in the "instruct" camp at the exclusion of "inform."

    Catholicism, for example, teaches that the Bible does contain historical books that tell of true historical events and people. (The Gospels are obvious examples.) Depending on the literary style of the books, it's safe to say that some were meant to be taken in a historical context as well as to instruct. In other words, there are several interpretations of these books that start with the literal, then may go on into the figurative, allegorical, typological, and so forth. St. Augustine's words can extend here: some historical accounts may have some factual errors, but the intentions of the authors were not to be history books as we now see them. They were to tell of salvation history, the truths of the faith, and how we are to conduct our lives in this world.

    ---

    Lastly, I think the argument that goes "religion is the greatest cause of violence in history" is a logical fallacy. People may be rightly and wrongly inspired by religion to commit or support violence. Those that don't have a good understanding of their own religion are the ones that are more likely to follow in the latter. But the point is, no one is perfect, so apparent contradictions in actions by people of the faith should not necessarily reflect on the religion itself. Christians, for instance, may be told to be charitable in the words and actions, yet some are clearly not. This is a fault of the person, not Christianity. Therefore, it's the confusion of taking the person to be a PERFECT representation of the religion they follow that is illogical.

  • xboxrulze

    Posted May 26, 2009 7:33 am PT

    It's always interesting when you come across religious posts in the forums.

    The thing about religion that seems to scare people, and this is especially true with Christianity, is that it can be so vastly divided amongst itself. Where you discuss the doing right, and being right sides of the coin is where this divisional wall is usually thrown up.

    Christianity was never meant to be split in some 300 ways. We're supposed to be a united people, not a divisive one. I've heard it said a lot that religion (Christianity usually being the context used) has failed humanity. As you point out here in some ways, and in others not written or mentioned by myself, humanity has largely failed Christianity.

    Great blog, sir! Well done.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 26, 2009 1:30 pm PT

    @Author_Jerry:

    Oh, I'm not saying that one cannot get anything factual from the Bible, and in reading what I wrote I can see why you might have gotten that misconception. What I'm saying is twofold: first, that the factual parts are more along the lines of the framework, not the ultimate point of the text; and second, that if any part of the Bible might appear at face value to be intended as factual, but which contradicts clearly established reality, then such an interpretation is wrong - which is basically what St. Augustine was saying.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 26, 2009 1:41 pm PT

    @raahsnavj:

    Well, I still think that the entire concept of the "one true religion" - as in, the religion whose assertions are accurate to the exclusion of all others - is still ultimately missing the point of religion... but now I'm just belaboring the point.

    @ehsan8888:

    I've read a little, but I haven't read the Qur'an that much, and I am nowhere near as well-versed in it as I am in the Bible (although I could still be better versed in the Bible, too). I'd like to change that someday, though, considering that I am sick and tired of hearing how Islam is the "religion of violence" when even my cursory reading of the Qur'an has revealed that to be nonsense.

    @xboxrulze:

    Oh, I completely agree. If someone asked me which denomination of Christianity I belong to, I would tell them that I am a Christian. I have little need or desire to align myself with one of the thousand-some sects of Christianity that somehow manage to be so bitterly divided despite all using the exact same holy text. That the divides between denominations can sometimes be so strong that members even go so far as to kill people who adhere to other denominations kind of makes me wonder if any of them have ever actually bothered to read their holy book.

    Reminds me of this one fictional religion I remember seeing in this one webcomic called Bruno the Bandit. It's called Ailixism (named after its Jesus-like figure Ailix), and it has two sects: the "shoulds" and the "oughts", which was formed out of a disagreement over whether Ailix said "People should be nicer to each other" or whether he said "People ought to be nicer to each other". Predictably, these sects get into a massive and bloody holy war over this disagreement.

    It's one of those things that is so true you have to either laugh or cry about it.

  • Author_Jerry

    Posted May 26, 2009 3:03 pm PT

    @GabuEx: Thanks for the clarification. After a closer reading, you are right that you didn't imply that the Bible doesn't also inform us on some facts. Still, religion as I see it does both inform and instruct, not one more than the other. Religion does so through faith, revelation, and metaphysical philosophy--beyond what we can learn through reason alone.

    So, how can we live the faith if we don't understand the reasons for this faith? The ultimate point, at least in Christianity, isn't simply in conduct, but knowledge as well. Conduct may seem more important because it's more difficult to apply in our lives. We can learn the faith rather easily, but to take the faith to heart is an entirely different manner. Nevertheless, if the truth of the faith behind the rules of conduct aren't emphasized or important, then the conduct become mere guidelines to live by, which can be twisted to anyone's preferences and beliefs. We need to know the "why" in what we do if we expect to take our actions to heart; and the "why," when it comes to morality, is fundamental in defining who we are. It doesn't take much imagination to realize the disorder that can come by re-defining our very being to fit anybody's whim.

    A fairly good essay, nonetheless, Gabu. You make some important points I wish more people would know before lambasting (and maybe even convince them to stop lambasting) religion.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted May 26, 2009 5:14 pm PT

    @Author_Jerry:

    I suppose that's a fair point, but there are two things I see there:

    1. The "why" behind the instructions is not exactly the sort of factual information that I'm talking about. I'm talking about the stuff that's entirely unrelated to the instructions, such as the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe, or the idea that the universe was created as is 6,000 years ago.

    2. The "why" behind the instructions is actually not something that is really touched upon as much as one might expect within the Bible, which is something that I've often found a little strange, to be perfectly honest. Some might say that the whole "you will go to hell if you don't do X" is a "why", but I disagree; it seems no more a "why" than a parent saying "because I'll spank you if you don't". I think that not nearly enough attention is paid to verses like those in the latter half of 1 John 4, as that, in my view, is the real "why". And, I suppose you are correct that that could technically be considered factual information - I hadn't exactly thought of it in that way before.

  • ChiliDragon

    Posted May 26, 2009 7:35 pm PT

    @GabuEx
    "Here is this wonderful and generous man, telling everyone that they should love and forgive each other and live in peace with one another, and his followers have been killing each other for 2,000 years because they can't agree on the way he said it!" --Michael Palin on Christianity through the ages.

    He's depressingly spot-on.

  • Author_Jerry

    Posted May 26, 2009 10:36 pm PT

    @GabuEx: To quote: "The "why" behind the instructions is not exactly the sort of factual information that I'm talking about."

    I know, that's why I brought it up. In my posts, I was merely showing disagreement, pointing out what I understand as flaws in what you wrote, and explaining why.

    "Some might say that the whole "you will go to hell if you don't do X" is a "why", but I disagree; it seems no more a "why" than a parent saying 'because I'll spank you if you don't.' "

    Sorry, I was probably being a tad vague. By the reasons for the morals, I meant who God and who we are as beings (for the most part); why there is sin and suffering in the world, et al; I also had in mind other facts, but they pertain to the truth in reality, not necessarily morals. Again, my point is, these facts may not seem as prominent (I don't know if they are or not, to be honest), they're still vitally important to the faith and the way we must conduct ourselves as Christians.

    @ChiliDragon: " . . . and his followers have been killing each other for 2,000 years because they can't agree on the way he said it!"

    I agree with Michael Palin, here, except for his notion that the disagreement between Christians is often violent. (Sorry if I'm nit-picking.) A more accurate way of putting this is the often and unfortunate lack of civil discourse when religion is discussed. To quote St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."

  • ChiliDragon

    Posted May 27, 2009 7:10 am PT

    @Author_Jerry
    A little bit... Europeans think of Northern Ireland when these things come up.

  • mav_destroyer

    Posted May 27, 2009 12:35 pm PT

    Hi
    i was just checking my friend's blog and saw yours. i couldn't help but take a look, and i gotta say i'm mighty impressed and couldn't agree more.

    i've been taught a very similar thing way back in school. for man to have balance he must have three things: Religion, Science & Capital.

    Capital represents money and property.
    Science represents knowledge and literacy as well as sciences. Religion represents not just religion but ethics and morals in general.

    all three complement each other. you can have capital but you'll lose it quickly without the proper knowledge, yet when you have both science and capital the chances are you'll use them to harm other people (intentionally or by accident) than benefit them without religion or ethics. you can also have religion and science but without capital you won't have the power to spread your knowledge or benefit the public, and of course with only religion and capital you won't be getting anywhere really.

    sadly there isn't a single place in the present world that has all three elements together.

    i'll try to track down the exact source and share it if possible.

    i've heard the argument that 'wars are caused by religions' and that 'the world would be a better place without' it many times. i've started taking a closer look at whats going on in the world and after observing and talking with several people i couldn't disagree more. while its true that the people involved in wars coincidentally happen to be all following several different religions, but its is because they strayed away from the teachings of their religions, but taking the "being right" approach rather than the "doing right" approach as you put it

    people always seem to find it easier to criticize others than fix their own behavior. i have so much to say on this topic but i don't want to take up too much space. i'd be very happy to share my views if you wish though.

    on a final note, yes i've also noticed how many religions have so much in common. especially Christianity, Islam and Judaism. when you read the books for each religion you couldn't help but notice that there are a lot of similarities and personally i believe that all three books have the same one and only author. i've also wondered about other religions. more or less they seem to have the same concept. it occurred to me, what if this is really all the same? its the same message sent throughout different times and different cultures. through cultural and age differences slightly modified these religions to form the religions known to us today. if you think about it, its a sure confirmation that there is indeed a greater being that is the source of these messages. every time mankind forgets he is sent a new message. the wrapper differs from one culture to another but the contents are the same.

    thank you for the great blog GabuEX
    though we're not friends but i already respect you as a fellow programmer and i'm happy to say my respect for you has only increased

  • Boomarley

    Posted May 28, 2009 2:05 pm PT

    I'm one of those that subscribes to the idea that a religion is unnecessary, since I'm a humanist and believe that the human spirit can supply the inspiration to motivate people to change the world for the better, but I don't hold anything against people that use religion as their motivator. Heck, according to your blog, you could even qualify humanism in the same vein as religion. But yeah, the first type of religious which is based on trying to take it seriously rather than metaphorically is ignorant.

  • BiancaDK

    Posted May 29, 2009 3:11 am PT

    Harmful. Hm hm hm. I guess.

  • horgen123

    Posted May 31, 2009 3:41 pm PT

    Great blog gabu *now I was about to post a question but damn I forgot it already*

  • Bozanimal

    Posted Jul 9, 2009 5:22 am PT

    @GabuEx

    Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. Unless, of course, your religion dictates the annihilation of those following other religions. Then it's religion. Unless of course it's patriotism. But ideologies don't kill, it takes a person to act on those beliefs in creed, country, revenge, defense, or otherwise. Unless, of course, you have your own religion in which people follow your ideology that involves killing people, in which case you have indirectly caused those deaths through that ideology. Then it's religion again.

    Of course, comparing religion and science is like comparing apples and pizza: They have nothing to do with each other. They are so often compared because discoveries made using the Scientific Method often lead to the disproof of previously held religious doctrine. I'll never understand why people equate science with religion; it's a process not a belief system.

    Wish I'd seen this post earlier.

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky 9.0
The World Ends With You 10
Sonic Unleashed 7.5
Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure 9.0
Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood 7.5
Mass Effect 10
NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams 8.5
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption 9.5
Mega Man Star Force: Dragon 8.0
BioShock 8.5
advertisement