I think there are valid historical reasons for this. Religions were indeed used to put the fear of God into the masses and to control people. Modern people seem to have lost sight of what religions represented in the past. The churches were indeed the governing bodies, or at least a very powerful tool used by those who were in control. Even the giving of tithes was quite different. Today tithes are considered donations, but in the distant past they were mandatory taxes.

My major concern with the Christian religion is indeed a historical concern and not a personal one. Being educated in the sciences I have seen how religious superstition and authority has humiliated and hampered the intellectual achievements of mankind. And clearly they were wrong in every case! They still do this today with concepts like evolution, so in this sense they haven't learned a damn thing.

They also burned witches at the stake and intimidated many people, religion has indeed been used as an intimidation device by authorities, and still is used that way by some people today.

You can argue that this wasn’t religion’s original purpose. That doesn’t change the fact of how it was used.

Finally, to assume that because someone doesn’t buy into a particular picture of God this means that they are somehow not “religious” is the biggest misconception of all. I denounce Christianity with the same intelligence and wisdom that I denounce Greek Mythology. To me there isn’t a whole lot of difference between them ultimately.

I embrace a more pantheistic view of spirituality. So to claim that any one religious view represents a greater maturity than any other view is itself a very uninformed and immature view.

I know that a lot of people are under the false impression that to denounce Christianity is in someway denouncing god. But, in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. For me, it’s no differnet than trying to show people that the beliefs of the ancient Greeks was merely mythology.

We can move out of the dark ages and still have a reverence for life and the universe. One does not preclude the other.

NOW THAT I can understand. Was well written. Expressive. Thank you!

Redykeulous,

There is a concept “teach a child according to his ability.” Many children only have the comprehension capabilities of not stealing because there will be a punishment. Hopefully as they mature they can be taught and explained the inherent wrong in taking what is not yours.

Unfortunately in large parts of society today even grown ups are at this very basic conceptual level. How many adults today would steal a million dollars if they were guaranteed to not get caught and bear no consequences for their actions? Too many.

Religious and moral values need to be instilled at a young age for most folks. Hopefully as they mature we can take their education to the next level.

Precious:

Children will learn what they live. Talk to a child as if the child were a comprehensive agent and the child will be one... and it's maturity will reflect that which the child has been taught...

Teach the child what religious aspect?

Scare them with punishment?

Explain to them why we share... share with them to promote sharing...etc. etc...

Do not fill their head with what NOT to do...

Fill their mind with what to do...

Inspire them to greatness rather than scaring them with punishment...or beating them into submission, verbally or physically...

Abracadabra,

Let’s play with your paragraph a bit. Let’s replace “fear of God” with “fear of the police”. Would you say that the police are used to control people? Even funnier is that the police (or FBI) is used to make sure that you pay your taxes. (And the government insists on more taxes then any religion mandated for charity!)

My point is that to a certain degree society needs some type of law and order. Do PEOPLE who are in charge of the law and order at the moment sometimes take it too far? Do they sometimes abuse their position of power in the name of law and order?

Well religion pretty much worked the same way through history. They were a form of law and order. Sometimes the people in powerful positions abused religion to do some very unreligious things. But you can’t blame religion per se for the wrong actions of individual people – regardless of what titles they held.

I think (at least one of) our differences lie in the fact that the religion you seem to be portraying is of a very childish level. Enlightened religion is one that embraces the intellect and encourages exploration and truth seeking. What it does not do is make the intellect its ONLY value. It embraces the duality of human strength and ability – both our intellect and our intuitive souls. It is not an either or. Nor is it one strength defies the other. Both are a necessity for human growth and wisdom.

Creative,

I very much agree with you for the most part. It’s certainly how I intend to raise my children. However there are aspects of morality and religion that are beyond a child’s ability to grasp.

For example the notion of prayer. A child might have a hard time grasping the notion of G-d or why he or she should pray to show appreciation or to feel connected to G-d. As a small child we encourage with notions of rewards – which is something a child can comprehend. As the child matures we can then teach them that prayer has its own merits and one does not need a reward system as incentive to do so.

Your description of abusive behavior is not one sanctioned by G-d or religion. Rather it reflects the teacher or parents inability to articulate words and marks them as terrible teachers or parents (let alone their level of growth as human beings.)

What I am finding very interesting in this thread is that people are very angry with religion and actions that some religious people have taken. It seems that the overall view and understanding of religion is very clouded by negative emotions or traumatic events.

People do very bad things. Sometimes those people call themselves religious, that does not make their actions a religious one. Judging G-d or religion based on the actions of particular people is like judging mankind based on the actions of Hitler or Stalin. Individuals (in power) do bad things sometimes. That is their own personal failing, not G-d’s.

Unfortunately some need to be taught moral values while others seem to have a natural innate sense of morality.

The fact that all men are not created equal cannot be disputed.

There are many people who would not need to be taught good morals. They just automatically do the “right” things because it’s in their nature to be this way.

This used to be a huge topic for my family when we would sit around the campfire talking philosophy. The Bible often talks about resisting the temptations of sin. But this kind of talk makes little sense to people who do not experience these temptations. Clearly all people are not tempted to do the same things.

I have never been tempted to do most of what is considered to be sin. And that includes any form of adultery, even just imagined in the mind. I’m naturally a very monogamous-minded person. The idea of having sex with someone outside of the covenant of love simply doesn’t appeal to me and never has. In fact, I’ve been accused of blowing a lot of chances with the women simply because I refused to even ask out girls who were merely going steady with someone else! Many people don’t even respect marriage, yet I innately respected even causal bonds. Although in hindsight I may have been too saintly for my own good, and for the good of the women who ended up with monsters.

I often wonder if there comes a time when doing the “right” thing might actually go against what some might think of as being ‘morally proper’. One thing for sure, most men did not hesitate to hit on my girlfriends so perhaps I was being overly respectful of other people in a world where that respect was unwarranted.

As far as hard-core crimes such as stealing things that don’t belong to me, I also had an innate sense of respect for other people’s belongings at an extremely early age. How much of it was ‘taught’ and how much was innate I’ll never know. I only know that I had a very good sense of morals long before I was ever introduced to any religious concepts. And I never felt “tempted” to do these things.

I don’t turn to religion for moral values. I don’t need a god to tell me what’s right and wrong. I can figure that out on my own. I think it’s a grave mistake to look to religion for moral values. Yet Christianity is a religion that is founded on morals. It’s all about sin and salvation period. That’s it’s main theme. That’s what it’s all about right up to Christ dying to pay for the sins of man.

How can I be expected to buy into a religion that has as its main theme sin and salvation when those things are so meaningless in my life? Sin has never been the focal point of my life. Why would I buy into a religion that acts like all men are inherently sinful and in need of salvation? It simply makes no sense to me personally. It just doesn’t apply to my existence. Certainly not the point where it should be the main theme and focal point of a religion.

Religion just isn’t needed to teach good morals. That’s all there is to it. Many atheists have very good morals. They are living proof that religion is not important for morals.

Just because Christianity is obsessed with sin and salvation doesn’t mean that everyone needs religion in order to have good moral values. The fact that everyone isn’t innately sinful is all the proof I need to clearly see that the religion is fundamentally based on a lie.

How does it work to say religious en moral values. I thought they were the same. Religion is a philosophy.

I quest that's ultimately a matter of personal preference.

As I stated in my previous post:


I suppose that perhaps some people aren’t capable of making their own decisions in life and need to have guidance form an external source. Not being one of them, it’s hard to me to comprehend that concept. I have always had an innate sense of morals. Religions have typically merely confirmed what I already believed to be good morals are also considered to be good morals by the most popular historical sages.

Just to show that I’m not the only one who thinks this way I’ll quote one of my childhood heroes,…

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein

I quote this quite often on the forums so I’m starting to feel like I’m wearing it out, but I do indeed support this view.

I don’t base my morals on what might happen to me if I don’t behave in certain ways. That’s not my driving force for morals. I think my driving force for morals is respect for others, and because of the golden rule (which I also view as common sense). If everyone would have respect for others then I would also be respected which is nice too.

So there are immediate results for being nice.

I find the idea of living in a world where every man has to fend for himself against an entire population to be distasteful. And so if you want to live in a world where everyone is friendly and cooperative, it has to begin with you. It’s just common sense. At least for me it is.

In short, I wouldn't change my behavior based on whether or not a judgmental God exists. And so I guess this is what I mean when I say that morals should not be dependent upon "religion".

I often wonder how many people would go totally berserk and lose all moral values if they knew with certainty that there is no God to judge them?

It seems to me to be extremely sad to think that there are people out there who are only restraining themselves to good behavior because they think they will be punished or rewarded based on their behavior. It seems to me that such a motivation would be really pathetic. That deep down inside those people would rather be pillaging and raping others rather than being nice to them.

How sad is that?

But hey, if religion can restrain such people then so be it. I'll even personally send them a Bible!

I also think they change. What was moral 100 years ago may not be now en vice versa. So we all are incompassed in the whole learning experiential morality based on the social morays of the times....however, I also agree there are innate possibilities as well. My query in that is ...is it intuitive or via reason or both. En which comes first.