Role of Religions

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I have written about this before...so once again.

2000-3000 years ago, societies were very small, localized, tribal, violent and very competitive. Today's societies are globalized, humane, universal and non violent (largely). Civilized!

This transition from the former to the latter in a matter of about 2000 years could not have happened but for the role of religions around the world. No doubt technology, travel and information in recent decades has also helped, but these are only enabling factors.

The inner transition of a majority of the people has been possible only due to the continued emphasis on love, cooperation, altruism, peace, forgiveness, selflessness etc. by religions.

We have managed to reach this level of mental maturity because of religions. But as always happens once we are cured of an illness, the medicine is thrown away.  Similarly, today religions seem irrelevant and unnecessary...mainly because they have served their purpose.

But if religions had not existed at all...we would have probably never reached this level of globalization, social equilibrium and stability. We need to recognize this.

Any views?

Cheers.

Sriram

[trippymonkey]

YES ! INDEED !!
Certain religions, need we name them?, think they can still order around their adherents in the same aggressive manner (Hell threats etc) as before. NO religion can be wholesale transported from its original 'invention' up to now !

ALL religions came about due to local circumstances as we all well know.
Pity some need to be dragged screaming into the 12th ?!!?!? LOL, century. !?!??

Nick

[Walter]

YES ! INDEED !!
Certain religions, need we name them?, think they can still order around their adherents in the same aggressive manner (Hell threats etc) as before. NO religion can be wholesale transported from its original 'invention' up to now !

ALL religions came about due to local circumstances as we all well know.
Pity some need to be dragged screaming into the 12th ?!!?!? LOL, century. !?!??

Nick

I can name one , Islam.

[Sriram]

YES ! INDEED !!
Certain religions, need we name them?, think they can still order around their adherents in the same aggressive manner (Hell threats etc) as before. NO religion can be wholesale transported from its original 'invention' up to now !

ALL religions came about due to local circumstances as we all well know.
Pity some need to be dragged screaming into the 12th ?!!?!? LOL, century. !?!??

Nick

Yes...religions have their many positive aspects. But some cultural and social aspects that are today irrelevant need to be removed.

Religions also need to evolve knowing what is important and what is unnecessary, otherwise they will become a nightmare both to their adherents and to others.

[Hope]

Yes...religions have their many positive aspects. But some cultural and social aspects that are today irrelevant need to be removed.

Can you give some religion-specific examples of these aspects, Sriram?

Religions also need to evolve knowing what is important and what is unnecessary, otherwise they will become a nightmare both to their adherents and to others.

I'm not so sure about this, Sri.  There are some aspects that are evolutionary additions in themselves that have little or no relevance to the original faith, and the sooner they are stripped out the better; do we really want to see additional evolutionary additions that are never anything other than culturally and temporally specific?

[trippymonkey]

Are there ANY religions that need have nothing at all taken from them as being time specific - such as eating pork which we, although not me, can do if we so wish, without 'harm'

[Hope]

Are there ANY religions that need have nothing at all taken from them as being time specific - such as eating pork which we, although not me, can do if we so wish, without 'harm'

I suppose the closest would be Christianity and Judaism, as they have both accrued things over time - for instance the 600+ additions to the Law by leaders over time in Judaism, and the idea that women can't be leaders in Christianity from about the 11th century AD.

Stripping back to basics would do both a world of good, and thankfully many evangelicals, at least here in the UK, are working towards that.

[Sriram]

Can you give some religion-specific examples of these aspects, Sriram?
I'm not so sure about this, Sri.  There are some aspects that are evolutionary additions in themselves that have little or no relevance to the original faith, and the sooner they are stripped out the better; do we really want to see additional evolutionary additions that are never anything other than culturally and temporally specific?

I thought many of them were obvious.

Islam - Slaughtering millions of sheep & goats during Bakrid in the name of Ibrahim. Marrying upto 4 wives. Triple Talak. Considering non Muslims as infidels...

Christianity - Ban on Abortion. Rejecting vegetarianism. Homosexuals as condemned to hell.

Hinduism - Many divergent rituals that dirty the environment and rivers... 

Any religious practice  that impacts on the environment or on human and animal welfare. Any religious practice that can today be considered as inhuman or unhealthy  or creating disharmony in society. 

Maybe some practices were relevant and even necessary at one point of time in a specific community...but if they are irrelevant or harmful today they should be eliminated.

[floo]

I suppose the closest would be Christianity and Judaism, as they have both accrued things over time - for instance the 600+ additions to the Law by leaders over time in Judaism, and the idea that women can't be leaders in Christianity from about the 11th century AD.

Stripping back to basics would do both a world of good, and thankfully many evangelicals, at least here in the UK, are working towards that.

Yeh right! The evangelical position can be very nasty indeed when threats are used to get people to convert!

[Sriram]

The other great contribution of religions is that they managed to create a kinship and bond among people of different geographical, racial, linguistic  groups which was otherwise impossible.

Religions have brought people together, inculcated feelings of universal brotherhood and also promoted love, peace, charity, forgiveness and many other very positive traits.

Since all individuals do not develop uniformly, some people would still retain the earlier competitive, violent, tribal, suspicious and insecure traits. These people will naturally group together and create trouble for the others.  These are a small minority and will eventually be reduced to insignificant groups. 

[torridon]

I suppose the closest would be Christianity and Judaism, as they have both accrued things over time - for instance the 600+ additions to the Law by leaders over time in Judaism, and the idea that women can't be leaders in Christianity from about the 11th century AD.

Stripping back to basics would do both a world of good, and thankfully many evangelicals, at least here in the UK, are working towards that.

I doubt there can ever be such a thing as a perfect baseline to strip back to. Should the New Testament be stripped of its Pauline additions, leaving the gospels alone ? Maybe Jews would argue for stripping back Christianity to get back to the original founding faith and covenant.  The early church did a massive job of stripping back in removing the gnostic gospels; maybe some things that were stripped back should be unstripped ?  There is always going to be diversity of opinion, as these boards show.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I doubt there can ever be such a thing as a perfect baseline to strip back to. Should the New Testament be stripped of its Pauline additions, leaving the gospels alone ? Maybe Jews would argue for stripping back Christianity to get back to the original founding faith and covenant.  The early church did a massive job of stripping back in removing the gnostic gospels; maybe some things that were stripped back should be unstripped ?  There is always going to be diversity of opinion, as these boards show.

I think where religion is still allowed or grudgingly and angrily tolerated as in some secular humanist societies you are still allowed to worship and hold allsorts of theological positions.
I wouldn't be involved in a Gnostic church....does that make me a 'bad person'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yeh right! The evangelical position can be very nasty indeed when threats are used to get people to convert!

There's threat's and there are warnings.
We may hate threats but can hardly be upset by them if we have no belief in the afterlife.
But I would move that news of God and possible separation from him pose an existential dilemma for the ego...and that's what people feel.

[floo]

There's threat's and there are warnings.
We may hate threats but can hardly be upset by them if we have no belief in the afterlife.
But I would move that news of God and possible separation from him pose an existential dilemma for the ego...and that's what people feel.

When these threats are aimed at children and the vulnerable they are abusive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When these threats are aimed at children and the vulnerable they are abusive.

I think they are not threats but warnings and they are 'aimed' at everyone....simply because it is a possibility everyone should consider. Moral reflection and self checks are no longer a feature of modern society. Hence an increase of alienation.

[Walter]

I think they are not threats but warnings and they are 'aimed' at everyone....simply because it is a possibility everyone should consider. Moral reflection and self checks are no longer a feature of modern society. Hence an increase of alienation.

Alienation?

who are you referring to,SPOOF?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alienation?

who are you referring to,SPOOF?

The alienated and the alienators...who are quite often one and the same....Walter.

[Walter]

The alienated and the alienators...who are quite often one and the same....Walter.

there seems to be a conversation going on in your head, with yourself.

[Brownie]

I do that, very interesting conversations they are too.

[Harrowby Hall]

The primary role of any religion is to control.

The claim to have an understanding of matters ostensibly occult gave the holders of such "understanding" the opportunity to dominate others and thus to establish some kind of hierarchical structure with themselves at the top.

One of the important control mechanisms adopted by the Abrahamic religions was the control of women's behaviour. This was partly to ensure that property could be retained within a particular family bloodline - thus marriage was invented and women generally given subordinate status to men. We still have the situation where women surrender their identity to men on marriage and bring their children up with his family name not theirs. It may also have been out of envy of women's perceived potential sexual capacity.

When a particular religion becomes dominant in an area then the rulers of that area use religion as a justification for further control through the medium of law. So laws and acceptable behaviour may be framed within the concepts of the dominant religious system. This as true with non-theistic religions such as Marxism as with theistic religions.

[Hope]

The primary role of any religion is to control.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, HH?  I accept that there are many strands of religious belief that concentrate on control, but there are many that don't.  Can you prove that 'the primary role' is what you have claimed it to be?

Is this any less the case in humanism and other secular belief systems?

[Gordon]

Do you have any evidence for this claim, HH?  I accept that there are many strands of religious belief that concentrate on control, but there are many that don't.  Can you prove that 'the primary role' is what you have claimed it to be?

Is this any less the case in humanism and other secular belief systems?

So, dealing with the last bit first: this thread is about the role of religions so 'humanism and other secular belief systems' aren't analogous - so this looks like another of you tu quoque efforts at goalpost-shifting.

In terms of roles it pays to look at how mainstream religious organisations have consistently conducted themselves during their period of activity and within their sphere of influence, and irrespective of how they would like to portray themselves. So, taking your own religion as an example, from around the 4th century CE onward it is indisputable that organised Christianity progressively sought to exert both social and political control and there are countless examples throughout history ranging from the various religious wars, crusades and the power struggles involving the papacy etc etc etc.

Listen to recent 24th November edition of 'In Our Time' on the Baltic Crusades for a spine-chilling example of power being exerted by Christianity via its considerable resources and influence, which were presumably committed in support its self-defined role of imposing Christianity where, as was noted in the programme, if pagans refused to convert to Christianity it was considered no sin to kill them. I'd say that was power in action: an abuse of power.

The current problem for Christianity in the UK is, of course, the exact opposite given that its influence on society at large has declined to an irrelevance.

[Harrowby Hall]

It is something which I assert, Hope. My observation, and experience, of religion in action leads me me to this assertion.

Religion is simply a device which enables an elite to have power over the behaviour of others.