Is religion/spirituality useful for 21st century?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
I agree with Boom Boom, cathedrals are nice architecturally.

---

But that wasn't my point. People of faith built these buildings, and although architectural merit undoubtedly is high on their priority, in the end cathedrals serve as the bishop's church, where services for the diocesan synods are held, and as a place where special services such as ordinations are celebrated. Cathedrals have to serve multiple purposes, and, in the old days when fuel efficiency wasn't a concern, they often were quite large. Now their people have to find ways to cope with rising fuel costs at a time when attendance in many places is down. I've seen quite extensive retrofitting in some places, to make cathedral buildings less wasteful of resources. Anglican cathedrals are normally used Sunday by Sunday by bishops and deans and custom usually dictates a full choir and exceptional church music as befitting a cathedral church. At least that's what I've experienced in cities. Some cathedrals in northern Ontario, in Timmins for instance, are far less obstantatious than St. James in Toronto. Regardless, they all fill a spiritual need to have a worship space for the main church of the diocese.

quote:

---

[b]Early Immigrants to Canada, were sick of religious strife, sick of monarchy's and their whims and the constant warfare religion and monarchy created. Here they also had the ability to become landowners.[/b]

---

And yet religion wasn't abandoned once the early immigrants started their new lives in Canada.

Boom Boom, I have neither the time nor the energy, to expose further to you the ugly side of Cathedral building to stand as a mans testimony to himself.

Just pick any very old Cathedral and research it.

Cathedral building had nothing to do with faith and everything to do with hubris and greed for power.

Boom Boom, you are quite correct the onus is upon me, and I stated I have neither the time nor energy to provide evidence as to how catherdrals are man's testimony to himself.

That is me saying, either take my word for, use some rational thought, look for evidence yourself, or just continue on as you were, in erroneous bliss about how the "faithful" built cathedrals. It matters not to me.

Having said that, one need only look at equivalent buildings of our time, huge edifices are built for ego, not for faith. There isn't anything new under the sun.

Kings, Emperor's, Pope's and Bishops, built Cathedrals to make permanent markers of themselves, far into the future.

Hagia Sophia, a cathedral dating back to 537CE, is still considered today to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world -though it is now a museum - was commissioned by Emperor Justinian I.

And when finished:

quote:

---

Justinian proclaimed "Solomon, I have surpassed thee!"

---

It had nothing to do with faith.

Hmmm, trying to think of a novel that discribed how most Cathedrals were not made for reasons of faith. Oh, I know "Sarum" by Edward Rutherford.

Just as the murals on the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel, were not requested because of, nor undertaken for, reasons of faith.

History of religion, is well worth entering into as an endeavor, it is eye opening, especialy for women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
[b]remind, one should not write contradictory statements within the same post. Jesus doesn't like that.

"One of my good friends family were Huguenots, who came on mass to escape persecution."

"I am excluding the French Immigrant quotient, as I cannot speak to it."[/b]

---

Well, seeing as how there is no proof that a person named Jesus ever existed, I am sure not to worried.

And in actual fact her family consider themselves Scottish Huguenots, as opposed to French ones.

quote:

---

Until its revocation in 1685, the Edict of Nantes had granted French Protestants a degree of religious freedom. After Louis XIV rescinded the Edict, Huguenots, fearing reprisals, fled to whichever of the Protestant countries would receive them. While most Huguenots took their skills and remaining capital to The Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, England, and America, some of them or their descendants made their way to Scotland, which officially had become a Protestant country in 1560. While a small number of refugees and emigrants from France settled in Scotland in the immediate aftermath of the revocation, the main influx occurred in the last quarter of the 17th century. Most of these emigrants (craftsmen, artisans, and merchants) settled in the Canongate, then a separate burgh but now a part of Edinburgh. The second largest occupational group of French Protestants joined Scottish regiments and fought against the armies of France or its Jacobite allies in Scotland and Ireland.

Researchers will discover the identities of many of these Huguenot emigres or their descendants in a groundbreaking new work from David Dobson entitled, Huguenot and Scots Links, 1575-1775. Working from baptismal registers, burgess rolls, tax lists, marriage registers, and other primary sources, Mr. Dobson has unearthed information concerning over 1,000 Scottish Huguenots

---

[url=http://www.genealogical.com/products/Huguenot%20and%20Scots%20Links%2015... and Scots Links, 1575-1775[/url]

Her family fled Scotland too, when it became no longer acceptable to be Protestant.

Was the cleric's name J.C. Polkinghorne? He's a Cambridge physicist and Anglican priest, and I've read some of his stuff.

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

That's a great link. Polkinghorne is one of my heroes.

Well, Cathedrals are hardly built of Cedar now are they?

And if you want to get all biblical [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] about it, have a look at Jesus's thoughts and feelings on forming a church/place of worship.

Okay, I do appreciate the architecture of Cathedrals, as creations of very skilled people, who obviously loved their craft. And that is where my appreciation ends. There is nothing faithful, nor romantic about their creation.

It is like holding romantic sentiments in regards to how one views the Crusades and Holy Wars.

The money to build them still came in the form of; enforced tithes/payment for dispensations, or rental payments, to the Church, and/or to the aristocrisy, who sucked the life out serfs, to build Cathedrals/Chapels, to have a structure stand in testiment of their greatness into the future, and a show of wealth/power to others at the time.

The Medici family comes to mind, as well. But we will just have to agree to disagree on this I suppose.

re religion and 21st century

this writer highlights something I have commented on repeatedly, from the viewpoint of living in France:
religion is enjoying a rebound in public visibility and intellectual interest in Europe, while a new secularism is resurgent in the US -- the opposite of some gross schematic views:
[url=http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/religion]http://www.theatlantic.co...

[i] ... demography may be pushing religion back into European politics. The Muslim birthrate in Europe is far higher than the birthrate among non-Muslims, and immigration from the Islamic world continues apace. Meanwhile, immigrants from Africa and Latin America have injected a new vitality into European Christianity, creating thriving Evangelical and Pentecostal communities in urban areas where many of the established churches stand empty.

It was Christians’ demographic advantage in the ancient world, the sociologist Rodney Stark has suggested, that helped their faith take over Europe in the first place, and high fertility rates help explain the growth of evangelical Christianity and Mormonism in the United States over the last century. Now similar demographic forces, the political scientist Eric Kaufmann argued last year in the British magazine Prospect, may be “carrying Europe towards a more American model of modernity,” in which the wall of separation between church and state looks more like a picket fence, easily scaled or shimmied through.[/i]

[ 27 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
[b]Is religious and/or spiritual belief important to help people deal with the challenges of the 21st century?
[/b]

---

Important to some, not important to others.

The final judgement in the gospels actually says nothing about believing in Jesus as one's lord and savior. It's actually a political and economic judgement of the nations whereas those that have treated the weakest members of society as you would treat Jesus would be favoured, while those that persecuted, ignored the poor, the hungry, the prisoners, etc. would be forever damned.

Look it up in Matthew 25:31-46.

Sorry, Illuminoid, but that doesn't fly.

You don't deserve credit for tossing out a religion made up by an Iron Age priest class if you just go right ahead and stick your god in the last place modern science allows it to exist - as a nebulous, meaningless un-thing.

And you actually deserve discredit for that very awkward description of karma as a cause-and-effect force. If a suicide bomber blows up a market, his cause (the bomb exploding) has an effect (people being perforated) in the real world. He doesn't have a negative 'karma effect' on the 'spirit plane' demanding that 'karma reactive forces' go into effect result in order to balance out some kind of 'total karma equals zero' equation.

And no, you didn't actually say any of those softquoted things, but that's essentially the bulk of your argument.

Then you say magic is real, because... actually, I don't know what you just said. Hopefully you say it in a broken english Indian accent so you will have some new age lackeys fall prey to it, though. At least then you might sap some money out of them.

It isn't just religion that has no relevance to the future, it's all manner of non-existent quackery, be it any of the following: unprovable sky-gods, unprovable afterlives, unprovable moral diktats, unprovable ether-gods, or unprovable karma reactions. And while we're at it, lets get rid of homeopathic medecine, crystal therapy, magnet therapy, and all the other stupid crap people somehow are always willing to suspend disbelief for.

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Well, I am new, and I am jumping in with some random thoughts. That is the problem with coming into a thread at the end. There is too much to say and it can lack cohesion. Apologies in advance should this be the case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

It does not matter the potential result, it is the intent to change, is what was discussed, and that it is motivated for reasons of SELF.

[. . .]

The first key is taking ownership of one's actions, and not farming responsibility out to another.[/b]

---

I understand this portion of your discussion to mean that you are an advocate of personal responsibility, and that you want it to be clear that any positive changes that come about as a result of the practice of religion are REALLY due to the "self" of the person practicing.

Say that it is a fundamental tenant of my religion to NOT see anything at all as coming from the "self." In my religion, any notions of self are mere delusion, and the main goal of my religion is to practice non-attachment to all things, including that which is most dear to me, my very self. It would seem then, that in order for me to adhere to what you require, I would have to cease practising my religion (although this is my initial conclusion only). That is very interesting! (And since this is my first post and tone does not transfer well, know that I genuinely just find it interesting -no sarcasm.)

More generally (not longer directing my comment at remind but just musing):

IMV to say "many religions have done bad things, and therefore all religion is bad" (this being a summary of an argument structure I have seen many times, in this thread and elsewhere) is a logical error, equivalent to saying something like "because socialist states have committed human rights atrocities, socialism is bad." But in the latter case we know better, we say, "we will not conflate the idea with its implementation." Why should it not be so for the former?

Another question is, if not faith/religion/spirituality or whatever you prefer, then what? Science and reason? A system of thought also not immune to being co-opted by other aims. I am not saying that science and reason can or should not replace the function of f/r/s, I am just saying, it has been as tainted by hegemonic discourses as any system of thought, and I would say it is imperative to see that so that one can endeavour to free one's self from it just as much as one must see it in one's practice of faith, regligion or spirituality.

And I would agree, that karma is much much more than "the action required for cause and effect." This is a common misunderstanding of karma as practiced by Buddhist and other religious/spiritual traditions. It is also utilized in the "grace v. karma" sermons popular with some Christians sects, where they promote grace over an incomplete and inaccurate definition of karma. If they took the time to fully understand karma, they would see that it has more in common with their grace than they think! But I digress!

So in short yes, religion is relevant to MY 21st century life. In the best instances, it is possible for religion to have a larger positive influence (e.g. Churches working against apartheid). In many instances, it does not live up to its potential. Whether it is [i]necessary[/i], is something I do not know the answer to. I suppose that depends on whether you think it is possible to live morally without an external system of some sort guiding you, or whether you think it is necessary to live morally at all.

quote:

---

What a thoughtful analysis!

---

It is actually. You are an intelligent man. Why you have suddenly chosen this moment to become the digital equivilent of a spider monkey, merrily hurling virtual excriment at a woman who would not otherwise be your enemy is beyond me. You can do so much better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noisymonkey:
[b]Well, I am new, [/b]

---

I just bet ya, are, too!

quote:

---

[b]and I am jumping in with some random thoughts. [/b]

---

Well, you were right about that, at least.

quote:

---

[b]...you are an advocate of personal responsibility, and that you want it to be clear that any positive changes that come about as a result of the practice of religion are REALLY due to the "self" of the person practicing.[/b]

---

]

That is correct.

quote:

---

[b]Say that it is a fundamental tenant of my religion to NOT see anything at all as coming from the "self." [/b]

---

Well, that would be silly no? Cause then that means that nothing negative comes from self either. So given that, I guess you would be up for letting out all the prisoners from the jails, and we need not worry about genocide or other such things happening and nor punishing the people who did it either, after all it is not they who are doing the actions.

quote:

---

[b]In my religion, any notions of self are mere delusion, and the main goal of my religion is to practice non-attachment to all things, including that which is most dear to me, my very self.[/b]

---

How sad.

quote:

---

[b]It would seem then, that in order for me to adhere to what you require, I would have to cease practising my religion (although this is my initial conclusion only). [/b]

---

That would probably be a good thing, as opposed to living your life in delusion, dis-associated from all things.

quote:

---

[b]IMV to say "many religions have done bad things, and therefore all religion is bad" (this being a summary of an argument structure I have seen many times, in this thread and elsewhere) is a logical error, equivalent to saying something like "because socialist states have committed human rights atrocities, socialism is bad." But in the latter case we know better, we say, "we will not conflate the idea with its implementation." Why should it not be so for the former? [quote][qb]

Because the former actually exists and has be doing atrocities for eons in its name.

Unlike the latter, and really what socialist states are speaking of?

Another question is, if not

[quote][qb]I suppose that depends on whether you think it is possible to live morally without an external system of some sort guiding you, or whether you think it is necessary to live morally at all.[/b]

---

What morals are speaking of? Or rather whose?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]I also believe there is something to be said for tolerating opinions you don't agree with.[/b]

---

This has nothing to do with "tolerance". Some ideologies should be tolerated (liberalism, socialism, conservatism, Christianity, Islam, whatever), while others should not (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.). Nonsuch's analysis does not explain why people are Jewish or Muslim or socialist. S/he said, "well they are, so they must want to be". That explains nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]

Those are aspects of ideologies not ideologies themselves.[/b]

---

Anyway, whatever, they were just examples. To say religion exists because people want it does not rate as science in my humble opinion. I'm sure people once said the same about the divine right of kings.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]Human societies are invariably religious. What do people think is going to happen to change that?[/b]

---

Human children are invariably born illiterate. What happens to change that is that they grow up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]Religious adults(almost 100% of the human population mind) are all three year olds in disguise?[/b]

---

In 2001, 16% of Canadians told the Census that they had "no religion". That figure was 12% ten years before. We're growing.

Even among my many acquaintances who would describe themselves (if asked) as Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist, very few of them actually would say "YES" if I asked them, "Do you believe God exists?", and very few of them engage in any religious activities, other than those of a social or traditional nature that many people participate in.

So no, I'm not comparing people to 3-year-olds, but try an experiment: Ask your friends why they are Catholic or Muslim or whatever. If they think about it, the vast majority should tell you: "Because my parents are/were." Because religious affiliations are very hereditary, aren't they?

Growing up means experiencing the world yourself, without preconceived notions, and coming to your own conclusions. For most, though, because religion really means little or nothing in their lives, it's easy to simply say "I'm United Church" the way you might say, "I'm Caucasian".

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]So what do you think will happen once everyone grows up and gets rid of religion?[/b]

---

1. More scope for science.

+

2. Fewer irrational grounds to get people fearing and fighting each other.

=

Net overall benefits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Ask your friends why they are Catholic or Muslim or whatever. [/b]

---

Just don't ask the born-agains, unless of course you have oodles of time to spare.

quote:

---

You know, this is kind of tiresome.

---

It most certainly is.

However, that won't stop this debate from surfacing again, and again, and again, and again! Like every other debate on Babble this discussion is in a perpetual loop.