How so? Do people take under religions for refuge basically? Do they take under a specific religion for the community? Do they take under a religion for what they can get out of it? Do people take under a religion because someone else did/does? That seems a bit in vein, not truly sought after.



That's like saying a dad is a dad is a dad by any other name. That's like saying if I praise your dad for being a great dad to me, that will be giving credit to my real dad, the one that raised me.

If you did something great, say you saved a person's life. Would you be alright for that credit to be given to someone else?

Nobody knows God's name so stop arguing about it. Its ridiculous and childish. Everyone knows what the concept of "God" is supposed to mean.

That definition is with respect to a college degree. Look at the rest
of the definition. (as in doctor of philosophy)

Read this part:

2
a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3
a : a system of philosophical concepts

and

4
a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

That is the part of the definition which illustrates that religion is
in fact philosophical. They are not exactly the same thing of course.
Philosophy does not have rituals for example but most of the central
issues in philosophy and religion are the same. This is why you could
have said similar things about philosophy.




So, you cannot say that others cannot know God of course.

Look, I appreciate your honest opinions but when you said that



I just thought you were wrong because it is not clear how they were
invented and that religion (which is a type of philosophy) provides
good answers to questions for which there are good and important
answers.

God roots for everybody equally and so should we.

"a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs"

Pardon my intrusion...

Is possible to use observational means.

Measure history.

Where a civilization rises to great heights (and does it not by war) you find also within that measurement a flowerering 'religion' with those attributes that are commonally associated with 'god'...

In all cases that I have looked at the historical data shows that when the 'signature' of God is upon the 'now' of a measured generation...

Great things happen.

Can one measure god?

Nope

yet it is possible to 'measure' his presence in the past by the fruits.

Unfortunately those same 'flowering' civilizations follow mostly the same path.

Jubliant expansion under god, followed by a holding pattern with god still in the majority of society, followed by a decline of those 'attributes' within the majority of the society followed by colapse.

Sure. I think we see God this way. By experiencing what is happening
in the world. It is a form of measurement.

I would go farther. I think this is a way to measure God (of
course our tape measure will run out before we get the entire
measurement since God like our Universe is infinite).



But I do in fact think we can begin to quantify God this way.
This is why when we look out into the night sky and see there
is no end - we feel the presence of God sometimes. At least
some of us - many of us - do experience this.

Even though I cannot at once know the whole ocean, I can know
a droplet and watch it fall and merge with the ocean and I can
see a tiny part of the majestic whole.

Civilizations? They rise and fall according to human limitations
and economic and political constraints. I don't view them as
religious constructs although many have had single religions others
have not. Civilizations flower where there is food and water and
a good place for people to lodge and live - like trees flowering
at the oasis. Times change and there is a drought or famine and
a new civilization arises down the road or across the globe.

That is the way of the world.

stephen hawking is a phd, doctor of philosopy, in theoretical physics but i'd never call him religious. i'll not get into an argument about a college definition being correct, as i see it, or, "this part" or "that part" that you see as correct. and nowhere in the definition is religion or theology even mentioned other than to exclude it from one definition. many words can be found in many dictionaries with several different definitions. we all simply apply the definition as we see fit. the word "religios" will have definitions that could be and often is used to describe an oakland raiders fan. so i'll go with the college definition that you provided. you go with what pleases you.








no it's not clear how religion was invented or how it came about. that is the very essence of why i question the dogma as i do. as for answers, the inquisitors thought they had the answers which they learned from christian teachings. had the dogma never been taught, the inquisition could not have happened. same can be said about the crusades, the salem witch trials and this fvcking jihad we must all put up with today. people were very carefully taught using the very scriptures that so many nold to have the answers that burning people at the stake and strapping bombs to themselves will bring them salvation in the name of god, allah or whatever the supreme flavor of the month. i haven't a religious bone in my body and my moral and ethical compass would never allow me to commit the atrocities against humanity that hss and still is being perpetrated by many god fearing folks. the "good and important answers" as you call them, were out there before the first words of the bible, quoran, talmud, whatever, were first put pen to paper. the good and important answers can be found without having to rely on the interpretation of scripture. if even webster cannot agree on definitions, as you've shown, how can two different people reading the bible agree on what it means?

Religion


versus


Relationship .


nuff said.

1. You incorrectly used the wrong part of the definition. I have
pointed out the obvious similarities between religion and philosophy
that's all.

2. I realize that there are many ways to arrive at good answers and
that religion is only one of the ways. This does not negate the value
of religion as a basis at arriving at the answers however.

3. Atrocities have occurred with and without religious justification.
Such abominations are never right and have no possible correct
justification regardless of their origin. Certainly many horrendous
atrocities were committed without any religious impetus. Atrocities
are not consistent with any religion and have nothing to do with
religion in general as all religions teach kindness. This is an
underlying concept common to all religions I think.

Yep...

Just like saying a dad is a dad... When you are speaking of the Father of us ALL.

There is but one God (though the Choice of the Rulers of Babel make his name many).

Slowhand,I agreee with what you are saying here.


it actually should have read,

"Relationship versus Religiousity" .


IF those who committed the atrocities had

actually had a real Relationship with God,

none of the atrocities woud have happened.


And Religion is the wrong word .... I agree...simply

because like you said, there were/are a lot

of peaceful people in ALL religions.


For those atrocities that were commited in the name of

relgion, the word religion is definitely the wrong word

to use here.


The right word should be

RELIGIOUSITY ( religiousity is the FANATIC MISREPRESENTATION

of what the religion teaches.... and is therefore the MISUSE

of the religion for one's own GAIN).


Those caught up in religiousity(btw, religiousity is not to

be confused with those who just have a strong religious

belief) are also usually dominated

by religious spirits(which will be looked further into at a

later time).

Good Morning Morning!

I was not disagreeing with you I was responding to jr's post one
before yours but you squeezed in your post before mine went up!

I agree with you that all religions condemn hatred and violence
and that these things do not come about because of religion but
rather from those who abuse religion for justification of their
own heinous agenda of power and selfishness.

Like I said, I see kindness and charity towards all as a central
unifying theme in all religions. Not a difference.

and i've rejected those similarities. i've incorrectly used no definition of the word 'philosophy' as it's a part of the definition that YOU provided. obviously you seem to think that you can insert religion into the definition where webster's does not and that's perfectly fine. but don't expect everyone to agree that religion and philosophy are in any way similar.



i never negated the value of religion for arriving at good answers. my problem with religious dogma is that it affords great opportunity for arriving at the bad answers ans history and current events have shown all to well. obviously atrocities are commited outside the realm of religion for many reasons. but you began a thread regarding religion so this is obviously not the place to discuss the atrocities commited by hitler, stalin or other famous boogiemen.

i happen to think that if religion could somehow be purged from the human mind the world would be a much safer place. that won't happen, of course, so i've nothing to do but discuss my thinking on forums like this. i spend time on a skin head forum as well stating my views that their christian belief that whites are superior to other races has no basis in logic. still that's what they believe. i've participated on islamic forums talking down this jihad silliness. if i could find atrocious behavior being espoused on a secular forum i'd be there as well but i simply cannot find such a thing.

religions, all religions, simply provide nothing good to humanity that cannot be provided without religion. i'd put my volunteer services over the decades up against any religious person i know as a measure of doing good for others and along the way i've caused much less harm to others than many of my god fearing aquaintences. so in my view religion is not in the least neccessary for a peaceful society and often times is a detriment to that peace.

first you say:




then you follow with:



So I do think you are trying to (wrongly) negate the value of religion. And I think you go far beyond overboard here.

Wars etc. are inherently anti-religious and universally abhorred
by religions of the world. Wars still happen but they are not due
to religion - they occur despite religious efforts to eliminate
the disputes.

The fact that unscrupulous people try to justify their violence
by religious arguments does not mean that religions themselves
are the source of the problem only that some individuals are
abusing the intent of the religions concerned.

you keep leaving out words. i said that i never negated the value of relion FOR COMING UP WITH GOOD ANSWERS and followed that with that the same good answers can be found without religion. this war on terrorism is certainly over religion. sure individuals abuse the intent of religions but the fact remains that without religion the intent could not be abused. you asked for the main differences in the religions. my answer is that there is no main difference. all of them worship a deity, all have been used to justify atrocity. you may dissagree but there it is.

Religion is not the cause.....abuse of religion is the cause.....


so if man got rid of religion, the people who commit

these atrocities would just find something else to abuse .

you cannot know that to be true.

yes, as regards god there are no answers. the human mind is simply not capable of knowing the existance of god, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena.

Religion is man reaching up to God.

Relationship is God reaching down to man.


Christianity is the ONLY religion that tells us about

this Relationship .


Christianity is the ONLY religion that offers us a

SAVIOUR .

No other religion does that....

Just Christianity.


That's why Christianity is not about Relgion at all, but

about Relationship.

Precious....

Christianity is not about being

superior ....at all....


it's abOUT God's Great LOVE for us !!!


Havw to run now....Have a Blessed Day, Kic...