a future without religion?

So, religion isn't important. Human nature is. Some people are bad, some people are good. Religion is of no consequence. Yes?

No, all it means is that the flesh is always at war with the soul.

Which will you allow to win?

Originally posted by thehumbleone

So, religion isn't important. Human nature is. Some people are bad, some people are good. Religion is of no consequence. Yes?

No, all it means is that the flesh is always at war with the soul.

Which will you allow to win?

Sounds rather like word salad.

Can you put that into plain english?

You said it was human nature why there is no difference between secular and the more religious societies. If increasing lack of religion does not affect measures of morality - such as breaking particular laws and teenage pregnancy, what is the point of religion and why would lack of religion lead to nihilism?

The evidence suggests it doesn't. Just that good people will be good and bad people will be bad. That is human nature.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Let me see, I would say human nature, not that hard to figure out, really.

If we follow human nature it leads to sin and death eventually.
If we follow the spirit it leads to eternal life.

Galatians 6:8
"For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting"

Originally posted by rocknroll

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Let me see, I would say human nature, not that hard to figure out, really.

If we follow human nature it leads to sin and death eventually.
If we follow the spirit it leads to eternal life.

Galatians 6:8
"For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting"

Exactly! thank you rocknroll.

Originally posted by rocknroll

If we follow human nature it leads to sin and death eventually.

Do you not think it is in some people's nature to be good people? To be law abiding people?

Maybe you can explain why secular societies are no more dysfunctional than the more religious states of the USA. In fact, it is possible that secular societies are less dysfunctional.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by rocknroll

If we follow human nature it leads to sin and death eventually.

Do you not think it is in some people's nature to be good people? To be law abiding people?

Maybe you can explain why secular societies are no more dysfunctional than the more religious states of the USA. In fact, it is possible that secular societies are less dysfunctional.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by melatonin]

Dude, we just told you, religious or not, it's if you choose to follow the spirit or human nature.

I wouldn't say one society is better than the other. It's a wild world either way.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Dude, we just told you, religious or not, it's if you choose to follow the spirit or human nature.

I wouldn't say one society is better than the other. It's a wild world either way.

So the secular law-abiding people are as moral as religious law-abiding people.

Therefore, religion does nothing for morality and nihilism need not be a result of losing faith & religion

For example, even within the US, the bible-belt states show higher levels of murder, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, and marriage problems than the more secular NE states.

OK, I'll help you out on the results of losing religion - birth rates will drop. However, this could be a good thing, as we have difficulty acquiring the resources we need already without destroying our environment.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Dude, we just told you, religious or not, it's if you choose to follow the spirit or human nature.

I wouldn't say one society is better than the other. It's a wild world either way.

So the secular law-abiding people are as moral as religious law-abiding people.

Therefore, religion does nothing for morality.

For example, even within the US, the bible-belt states show higher levels of murder, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, and marriage problems than the more secular NE states.

OK, I'll help you out on the results of losing religion - birth rates will drop. However, this could be a good thing, as we have difficulty acquiring the resources we need already without destroying our environment.

I don't understand what your trying to get out of your secular, non secular BS, Listen, lets put it the way Jesus put it

Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate to Hell is wide and the road that leads to it is easy, and there are may who travel it. But the gate to life is narrow and the way that leads to it is hard, and there are few people who find it. MATTHEW 7: 13-15

Originally posted by thehumbleone

I don't understand what your trying to get out of your secular, non secular BS, Listen, lets put it the way Jesus put it

Well, it's quite easy. The NE states of the US are less religious than bible-belt states. Europe is less relgious than the US.

On most measures of morality, these less religious places do no worse, and may do better than the more religious places. It's not BS, it is the real-world, those are the facts. The proof is in the pudding, so to say.

Jesus' quote tells us about how to get to heaven. I'm talking about the real-world, the place in which we find ourselves.



[edit on 20-1-2007 by melatonin]

Jesus' quote tells us about how to get to heaven. I'm talking about the real-world, the place in which we find ourselves.



[edit on 20-1-2007 by melatonin]

Yes and no, it tells us about the reality of how many people will make it to heaven.

You're arguing as if non religious people are more moral, when in reality, ALL of us are sinful, every human on the plant has broken the ten commandments.

I still applaud the "bible belt", because at least they have faith in what God did for them.



[edit on 20-1-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
You're arguing as if non religious people are more moral, when in reality, ALL of us are sinful, every human on the plant has broken the ten commandments.

i thought you had a "new covenant" with god
what happened to not having to follow the OT?
ohh
wait
i see
you just pick and choose
and just a little FYI
the only parts of the 10 commadments i've broken were purely theological parts: keeping the sabbath holy and believing in god

I still applaud the "bible belt", because at least they have faith in what God did for them.

what did god do for them outside the context of religious salvation?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by thehumbleone
You're arguing as if non religious people are more moral, when in reality, ALL of us are sinful, every human on the plant has broken the ten commandments.

i thought you had a "new covenant" with god
what happened to not having to follow the OT?
ohh
wait
i see
you just pick and choose
and just a little FYI
the only parts of the 10 commadments i've broken were purely theological parts: keeping the sabbath holy and believing in god

You obviously don't understand Christianity, we believe the whole bible is the word of God.

How old are you again?

So your saying you've never lied, stole, lusted, or been angry with someone?

OK, now you're just flat out lying.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Yes and no, it tells us about the reality of how many people will make it to heaven.

You're arguing as if non religious people are more moral, when in reality, ALL of us are sinful, every human on the plant has broken the ten commandments.

I still applaud the "bible belt", because at least they have faith in what God did for them.

OK, that's great. Loads of people in the bible-belt will make it to heaven, they may well get there quicker than most places...

But I always thought that religions expected people to behave in a moral fashion? I'm not really arguing they are more moral, I think some of the difference may be educational, but they are certainly no less moral. These secular places are where you can happily be atheist and even, god forbid, gay and live a decent fulfilling life.

Why are the less religious places no worse for common measures of morality? If losing religion means embracing nihilism, it seems either nihilism isn't such a bad thing, or the claim is incorrect.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Do you not think it is in some people's nature to be good people? To be law abiding people?

No. It is our spirit that dictates goodness. Our human nature dictates sin.
You are getting our flesh (human nature) and our spirit mixed up.

Originally posted by melatonin
Maybe you can explain why secular societies are no more dysfunctional than the more religious states of the USA. In fact, it is possible that secular societies are less dysfunctional.

Possible, but I seriously doubt it.
Every soul on earth is prone to sin. No one is better than anyone else.
We are all in the same boat in regards to "falling from grace".
Doesn't matter if you come from a secular or religious society.
Human nature, and the sin it leads to, knows no bounds.
People who seek solace in God are seeking to listen to their spirit, and not their flesh.
Afterall, this life (in the flesh ) is but the blink of an eye compared to an eternity (in the spirit). Prepare now.

Follow your spirit, not your human nature.

Originally posted by rocknroll
Every soul on earth is prone to sin. No one is better than anyone else.
We are all in the same boat in regards to "falling from grace".
Doesn't matter if you come from a secular or religious society.
Human nature, and the sin it leads to, knows no bounds.
People who seek solace in God are seeking to listen to their spirit, and not their flesh.
Afterall, this life (in the flesh ) is but the blink of an eye compared to an eternity (in the spirit). Prepare now.

Follow your spirit, not your human nature.

Well, as I mention the evidence does suggest that there is no real moral penalty in losing religion.

I think a lot of this is just using different terms, which is why I was asking THO to clarify earlier. When you say spirit, I would say conscience. There are people who lack conscience and those people will be the bad people and no matter whether they hold a religion, they will tend to be bad people.

I think this is just biology. Psychopaths, some of the most immoral people, have frontal lobe dysfunction, which is the area we see involved in social processes such as empathy, sympathy, and 'theory of mind'.

Originally posted by rocknroll
Afterall, this life (in the flesh ) is but the blink of an eye compared to an eternity (in the spirit). Prepare now.

Follow your spirit, not your human nature.

and isn't that why religious thinking is bad for the world?
when you don't focus on the now
on this world
it leads to problems

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by rocknroll
Afterall, this life (in the flesh ) is but the blink of an eye compared to an eternity (in the spirit). Prepare now.

Follow your spirit, not your human nature.

and isn't that why religious thinking is bad for the world?

No, it is not why religious thinking is bad for the world, in fact the exact opposite. If you have more faith in human nature, well then you have more faith in human instinct of focussing on being selfish before you think of anyone or anything else.

when you don't focus on the now
on this world
it leads to problems

How can one focus on the truth of the now in this world when they are nothing more than the manifestation of focussing on Self PRE (*before) SERVE (*anything or anyone because there is no end to the command)

that is what has led us to problems. People think they have focussed when they can not sense anything that does no comply with their instinctual tendencies to be selfish.

**Remove religious thinking from this world, and succumb to human nature of selfishness??

This is what i am learning from this thread. Is this a good lesson?

[edit on 21-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]

ET, you pose some interesting points
however, the view of human nature as inherently selfish isn't necassarily valid
many great thinkers see it as different
some, like locke, saw it as shaped by environment and baseline inherently good
while someone like hobbes would argue that humans are inherently animalistic savages out to protect their own

well, i don't see humanity succumbing to selfishness in the abscene of religion
then again, that may just be my personal views on human nature as simply benign
i see the world not changing much in terms of overall selfishness without religion (at least in the foreseeable future)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

well, i don't see humanity succumbing to selfishness in the abscene of religion
then again, that may just be my personal views on human nature as simply benign
i see the world not changing much in terms of overall selfishness without religion (at least in the foreseeable future)

For what it is worth, i do foresee a day when much more of the mystery of the religions is less mysterious. I do see a day coming when spirituality and science meet eachother and both are somehow correct.

But is seems we (humanity) still has to overcome what seems to be obsticles and contradictions to comprehending reality.

I am however personally convinced that there is truth in all of it. Although i may debate with some people, and pick a side contrary to their own side, the overwhelming amount of the time it is not because i disagree with their points, or their logic, but rather i disagree with them for discouraging other points of view as impossible, or not logical. But, before i choose to debate or mildly argue against someone, first i do all i can to understand their point of view.

If i can't grasp at the very least the fundamentals of their point of view, i will usually will not outwardly disagree with their stance on the subject. It's hard to do if i don't comprehend their stance on a subject, so i read, and ask questions, and yes....

there are usually more times that i am the student, and no where near a teacher. I only picked the name "teacher" because ats wouldn't let me be "Esoteric Guru", as for the "guru" name i wanted ... i do know a lot of useless stupid stuff that is fun to share. So, i settled for Esoteric Teacher. But, it was not my first pick. -Thought i would share that.

thanks,
john



thanks,
john

so
is anyone else willing to tackle the possible implications of a world without religion (not from a religious standpoint, from a social and philosophical standpoint)