"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

First topic message reminder :

The above is a quote from HL Mencken, taken completely out of context purely as a starting point for this thread.

I've been watching the 'religion' themed threads for a while now, and my conclusion is that religion seems to bring out some very nasty traits in many people - the main activity on these threads has been squabbling, sniping, argument by assertion, and puerile point scoring.

This seems par for the course whenever religion is discussed, whether within small groups like this one, or on the wider world stage (I'm thinking Crusades, I'm thinking Jihad, I'm thinking abuse of women in some Muslim cultures, I'm thinking brutalisation of Muslim prisoners in Iraq and in Abu Graib)

Religion so often seems to be the excuse we use for hating, torturing and killing people who are 'different', and it seems that, even in a friendly discussion where little is at stake, religion continues its role as a fomenter of conflict.

Yet, when you look at religious texts, the rhetoric is about God's love, duties to one's neighbours, humane treatment of animals, children and all weaker individuals, sharing wealth and resources, giving to the poor and needy etc etc. I can't see anything wrong with any of that - in fact, I'm completely behind all of it.

Religion is at the core of all civilisation - it seems to have evolved within all cultures as a means of drawing the community together, collecting and preserving knowledge, teaching children, providing 'theatre' in the form of communal ritual observances, providing a sense of safety, through knowledge of the seasons, history of the community etc. In early times, heads of state would often have a priestly role, and might be sacrificed if the harvest was unsatisfactory to placate the gods.

It's clear, at least to me, that we would not be able to live within the social groups we do, and could not have made the material advances we have made, as a race, without the influence of religion in providing the ethical framework within which we can live close to each other without raw self interest undermining any attempt to create a community.
Without communities, we are only ourselves - within communities, we have access to the talents and gifts of others - the whole is definitely much greater than the sum of its parts. Mankind (and womankind) needs to live in communities - no man, as John Donne famously wrote, is an island.

So far then, religion is to be seen as a completely positive thing - religion=communities, communities=people getting access to knowledge and resources they would otherwise lack, and thereby achieving outcomes they could not even dream of alone. Looked at in this way, religion is a completely practical and very desirable thing.

Looking around the wibbly wobbly world for inspiration, I found this series of essays - i'm only posting the link to the first - you can easily find the others if you're interested.
http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/1.html

This is interesting to me because it divides the concept of religion into 4 phases:
Ritual
Emotion
Belief
Rationalism
Seems to me, so far I have talked about the first two phases, and the conclusion here is that there is no problem at all with these two.
Ritual observance brings a community together, channels the emotional energy of community members, provides entertainment, access to knowledge, the foundation for a set of rules about behaviour - in short, a police presence.
I do it all the time with my dogs - 'look over here, here's a biscuit, behave in a certain way and you will have the biscuit'.
Dogs are happy, furniture remains unchewed, the household is a happy one.

When we move on to what the author of the piece would term the 'individual' aspects of religion, I think we start to get into problems, and this may be where the negative aspects of religion arise. Belief and rationalism (forming a personal code of practice based on belief, and attempting to convince others of the validity of this) are where the subjective, 'numinous' elements arise, and where the mischief can also begin.

Some religious figures have evolved what I might want to call benign beliefs - Elizabeth Fry for example, who believed that her God loved everyone, even convicted criminals, and who expressed that belief by working within the prisons of the time to provide the benefits of civilisation to those prisoners so far as she could.

Some religious figures have evolved much less benign beliefs - I might want to cite the priests of the Spanish Inqisition, whose revelation and belief was that God loved only Catholic Christians and that the use of torture and painful death would save the souls of those that fell below this high standard.(Sorry, this is VERY oversimplified, but I hope people get the gist)

In my own journey, I have found it preferable to avoid close connection to any religious movement, because I think once you get into those 'personal' aspects of religious belief and action, you do run the risk of getting involved in beliefs and attitudes that I would find morally repugnant (the belief, for example, that Baptists, Catholics, Muslims - fill in your own denomination - have the direct line to heaven the real gen, the absolute knowledge of right and wrong; and that everyone else is going straight to Hell)

I like having the concept of god - I don't care whether anyone can prove or disprove her/his/its existence. To me the truth is that we are all god's children - we all belong to the same family, we all have the right to live, to grow and to find our own truth.

Between the world's religions and belief systems, there are many more points of similarity than there are differences - we all have a moral compass, we all believe in something - what I would like to see is a proper discussion of our different beliefs, a friendly and sympathetic consideration of the points of view expressed, and a sincere attempt to reach a common understanding.
But, hey, that's just me - carry on squabbling if you like

I've tried to divine a meaning from the above exchange. Without success. Can anyone assist?

I'll be happy to.

You said that it is arrogance to dispute something baed on the fact that the disputer did not personally experience it. Snowy then asked you how often the tooth fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny has been to your house.

Snowy is implying that she hasn't witnessed any of those mythical figures personally but, to you apparently, that isn't a good enough reason to dispute their existences. So mayhap you've experienced one of those three legendary characters personally?

In the second part, Snowy says there's a difference between arrogance and abject stupidity. Yeah ... I tend to agree.

Here's an example: It may be arrogant to completely dismiss a claim that someone had a religious experience simply because you never had one. Yet it would be stupid to just accept at face value everything someone tells you. Therefore, while you may accept that someone had a religious experience, it would be stupid (or at least very unwise) to accept without question that it was really God or Jesus or whomever that was speaking to them. It would be a bit ridiculous to believe someone saw Jesus when Jesus looks like he stepped right out of a Catholic painting, all caucasion and wearing the same clothes he is shown wearing on the inside cover of a Bible. Why the hell would Jesus be white? In any event, you have to weigh the facts with the testimony. The more wild the claim, the more stupid you would be for believing it outright.

It's like alien abductions. I don't care if my own mother told me she was abducted, I would need more proof than just her word. I would believe something happened to her, but was it an abduction or a case of sleep paralysis? I would have to square her words with the fact that, despite the millions of people who have claimed to have been abducted, there is not one single photograph or video of an abduction taking place - even from people who claim to be abducted regularly. There are plenty of photos and videos of UFOs, so where are the ones of abductions? Hmmm ... so yeah, arrogance vs. stupidity. It makes perfect sense to me.

The Royal Navy of Henry VIII always had a Marine contingent on board larger ships, to function as an Army Unit whilst in foreign parts and incidentally to help keep order amongst the crew. Their accumulated knowledge of foreign lands made them an authority on all sorts of things beyond the experience of land-lubbers, and the King would consult a Marine officer if someone came up with some incredible notion.

From this came the expression, "Tell it to the Marines!"
(See whether THEY believe what you are saying.)

Personally I trust my own judgment as to whether someone is spouting a load of cobblers.

Removed because it is offensive to my friend.

As I said Rock, I think you and i must part company - I am very familiar woith the Sermon on the Mount and many other parts of the New Testament - I can accept most of the philosophical and ethical content - and that's as far as I now go.

Rock, I consider it my mission in life to change the world one act of kindness at a time. I don't think my meaning is to do anything very dramatic or heroic - there is nothing exciting about my life or my beliefs. I don't imagine that I can do much to affect the lives or fates of those I am not in personal contact with.

I try very hard to act always in a way towards others that I would want for myself, and to be sure in communicating with others that I have a clear understanding of what they are saying and how they would like me to behave towards them.

I strongly believe that we are all 'god's children' by which I mean we are all interconnected in the way that a family is, and that therefore we have a duty towards each other that we would have towards a sibling or parent.
I believe that I am better than no person and no person is better (or worse ) than me.

I believe we all are possessed of a shining spirit and have the potential to become fully integrated and joyful human beings.

I'm committed to the Quaker peace testimony, and will always strive to resolve difficulties without violence or aggression. Whether I will always succeed is a moot point, because I am only human and I do get cross and grumpy at times.

I donate up to 15 hours per week of my time (that's two very full days) to voluntary work in an advice centre, helping people to understand their rights and advocating for them with government bodies etc. I've chosen this form of service because I have the skills, learned during my working life, to make a good job of it, whereas there are other things, such as providing hands-on care that I wouldn't be as good at, because I'm quite a clumsy person.

When I am not doing that, I have two elderly neighbours and an elderly mother who depend on me for various things (transportation, help with forms a listening ear, the occasional meal). I also have a slightly older friend who often needs a sympathetic ear as he is caring for a relative with dementia. I sometimes visit his relative so he can get a holiday.

My best friend currently is a little girl of 6, whose parents are working long hours and who comes to my house to play for a day or two every week.

I love to feed people - it is the thing in life that gives me most pleasure. I believe people enjoy coming to my home and always feel welcome.

Sometimes I just eat chocolate, play computer games and drink too much wine.

As a young woman I studied religion, and have spent a lot of time pondering 'religious' topics. My conclusion is that we are not simply the animal that laughs - we are spiritual beings with a life beyond the body - but I am repelled by the assertions and glibness of organised religion and not convinced by any of the 'proofs' of god's existence, so I have looked within myself, within the other humans around me, and within the beauty of the world, for my answers - I believe I have found enough meaning there.

I am sure there are many ways in which to find God and the wonders of the world providing many.

I am sure boatlady, you get great satisfaction from helping others and not in any self gratifying way.

I spend one day a week providing entertainment for the handicapped and have never ever refused to help anyone I have been in a position to do so, even if others thought them not worthy of help.

There is a big difference between disputing others ideas and judging there way of life.

I have through work etc; met and been involved with people from all walks of life and the most unhappy have always been those who have the most money and worldly goods.

A little humility on all sides would not go amiss.

Rock
Thanks for your comments

"People say we need religion, when what they really mean is we need police"

.... and aren't there a lot of Policemen around threads like this one?

.

I think that applies to every team game

We need both religion and police.

Religion gives us the basis for a good and prosperous existance if we follow the Bible teachings, we need the police to ensure that those who do not are kept under control and do not cause problems for those that do.

Religion gives us the basis for a good and prosperous existance if we follow the Bible teachings

Which ones?

Ah, There's the rub. While there's much of great value in all the religious texts, there's also much to deplore, which is part of what can make a 'religious' position so problematic for those around

Much better possibly to form one's own ethical position and estabklish one's own spiritual life, possibly drawing on what one finds valuable in the religious texts - I guess the police will intervene if it's one that causes harm to others.

Most contributors must already know that nowhere in The Holy Bible can the word "Police" be found.

Most contributors must already know that nowhere in The Holy Bible can the word "Police" be found.

They were called 'soldiers' and 'elders' in those days.

Should this discussion be continued in Aramaic, Masoretic Texts, Hebrew or Classic Greek? If English does not suffice.

Stumped again!

Stumped again!

At this rate, OW, you should be about 2 feet tall by now.

You mean the thread can stop now? Mission accomplished?

OW, you are free to stop whenever you like.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F

not enjoying the religious threads, OW?

Navel-contemplation is not really my scene, that's true.

Content to poke other people's navels?

Content to poke other people's navels?

Never mind OW. He doesn't add anything to a discussion except snide remarks and other people's sayings from the sidelines. He doesn't actually have an opinion of his own.

Of course religion can be confusing when there appears so many different examples.

When I was young my parents belonged to a church where the youngsters were told about hell and were realy frightned into attending the church in fear of being on the end of the fork, I had more New Testaments for good attendance than I now have teeth.

Later in life I looked a little further afield and started thinking for myself, taking into consideration not just the Bible but life in genaral and the world as a whole.

Subsequent experiences and consideration of all that I had to consider, I have come, for some time, to the firm conclusion that God exists and is the original creator, original being the operative word.

polyglide wrote:.... consideration of all that I had to consider, I have come, for some time, to the firm conclusion that God exists and is the original creator, original being the operative word.

Nobody could quarrel with somebody's personal satisfaction at having found an unwavering Belief, which expresses itself like that.

So why does such a Believer feel so compelled to tell everyone else about it? Constantly?

A Normal tendency if someone finds something which they consider precious, might be to keep it substantially to themselves or family and savour the personal pleasure of possession without the dilution risked from alien involvement.

A Normal tendency if someone finds something which they consider precious, might be to keep it substantially to themselves or family and savour the personal pleasure of possession without the dilution risked from alien involvement.

Wouldn't be much of a forum if everyone kept their thoughts to themselves....which begs the question....why are you here?

I think it's natural, if you feel you've discovered something that is important and life-affirming to you, to want to tell people about it - that's how you get advertising, all those round robin things on the Internet etc

Where I might want to quarrel, and often have, is when someone tries to enforce their point of view, and to act as if their opinion is an established fact.

Too often, in discussing matters of spirituality, people become dogmatic and stop listening to what anyone else has to say - that is how we get 'religious wars, Crusades, Jihad and all those other unacceptable side effects of 'religion'.

I think it's important to discuss all matters of belief and conviction - but with an open mind, bearing in mind always the possibility that the other person may also have a valid point of view.

Those who don't feel comfortable in such dicussions are, of course, free to abstain.

The world is full of false prophets

http://christswitness.com/

The world is full of false prophets

Which one are you, OW?

I'm currently providing a bit of child care for a neighbour's little girl.
The rule we apply in our house is that we can all say whatever we want, and everyone has a right to speak up, always supposing we
1) don't say it loudly enough to make anyone feel uncomfortable and
2) don't interrupt what other people are saying

Sensible rules which apply to any conversation, I feel