Human Importance In Religion

[scameter]

Is Human contribution to religion and Human follwing of religion necessary, or can religion exist by it's self? To be honest, I think religion is alive without any followers or practitioners. I think it exists if even as juat an idea. Like, the Viking religion of their olden days. That religion is not practiced or followed anymore, but, I think it still exists if even as juat a chapter in a religion textbook, a chapter in a history textbook, or as a discussion topic, or even as just an idea even if that idead is not exercised. But then, we come to the question: Do ideas exist by themselves, or do they vanish without Human contribution? This topic should be a good one. :think: :)

[CSwriter1]

How about religious thought in the Middle Ages, does it exist? Please consider other discussions of reality that have been part of these discussions. Here is how Dante described the universe. He is speaking of the orbiting of planets as the Pruimum Mobile.

"And this is the reason that the Pruimum Mobile moves
with immense velocity: because the fervent longing of all its parts to be united to those of this thenth and most divine and quiet heaven, makes it revolve with so much desire that its velocity is almost incomprehensible. And this quiet and perceful heaven is the abode of that Supreme Deity who alone doth perfectly behold Himself. This is the abode of the beatified spirits, according to the holy church, who cannot lie, and Aristotle also seems to think so, if rightly understood, in the firest of The Heavens and Earth. This is the supreme edifice of the universe, in which all the world is included, and beyond which is nothing; and it is not in space, but was formerly solely in the Primal Mind, which the Greeks call Protonae. This is that magnificence of which the Psalmist spake, when he says to God, 'Thy magnificence is exalted about the Heavens'".

Have others been saying the same thing or something different?

[scameter]

nothing really.and, relating to religious thought in the middle ages, there were many Christian thelogians and priests and philosophers who lived mainly in Ireland but however seemed to have upheld the resistance of Christian thought against the striving threat of the more barbaric religions attepting to corrupt Christianity with their insanity. I disagree wholefully with the critical view of Christians of that time against the more tribal religions of Europe, but the Christian theologians and thinkers did uphold religious thought throughout that time period, as did many Eastern religions and tribal religions, who some had their wise people and knowers.

[CSwriter1]

Please, what do mean by "more barbaric religions attempting to corrupt Christianity with their insanity".
I think we might have good debate here.

I truly hope you are knowledgible of Celts, because I think it was the Celts who made England distinctly different from Germany. However, I must confess I am not well informed. I know only enough to ask questions.

[scameter]

Well, CS, if you noticed i also stated that i disagreed with the opinion of some that the more native religions of Europe are barbaric, for i greatly admire our, or at least my, heritage, for i think it is very beautiful and unique and it also shows more of the mystical side of Europians than do most other religions followed by Europeans. But, yes, i greatly admire the Celts for their great knowledge and their ability to uphold the archives of Christianity and history post-barbarian invasion of Rome.And, one of the cultures most ignored in European aknowledgement are the Vikings, or Norse. Their religion and culture was very extensive and augmented with mysticallity and creativity, as were their artistic and metalurgical abilities.

[CSwriter1]

I confess much ignorance of Viking and Nordic religion. Their mythology just hasn't appealed to me.

I still don't know what you meant by "more barbaric religions attempting to corrupt Christianity with their insanity". It is my understanding Christianity has pretty much swollowed up everyone else's beliefs, like it is claiming to the sole authority of God and morals now, taking the credit of what democracy has done for us.

Isis was the bread and water, long before Jesus became the bread and wine, and it was switched to wine, because wine is the color of blood! He holds up his glass of wine and says it is his blood! Christianity is a religion based on human scarifice, and as it srpead it adopted other people's customs and celebrations giving them all a Christian interpretation.

The Easter bunny and Easter egg are Egyptian new life in Spring and regeneration of life symbols. The ever green tree is northern symbol of eternal life and becomes our Christmas tree. The winter time celebration being pretty universal but that is left of it is the Christian interpretation.

My understanding of attacks on Christianity, is the defense of all that Christianity would devour. CS

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Is Human contribution to religion and Human follwing of religion necessary, or can religion exist by it's self?

I am not sure if I understand the question. Religion is a human invention/idea/activity/convention or whatever you want to call it. Without human contribution it simply doesn't exist.

:lol: Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

How do you know that, Tom? In case you haven't noticed, there are many religions that have no current follower, like that of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but are still religions none the less. They have no Human contribution of following of late. :)

[scameter]

Originally posted by CSwriter1@May 17 2005, 03:32 AM
I confess much ignorance of Viking and Nordic religion. Their mythology just hasn't appealed to me.

I still don't know what you meant by "more barbaric religions attempting to corrupt Christianity with their insanity". It is my understanding Christianity has pretty much swollowed up everyone else's beliefs, like it is claiming to the sole authority of God and morals now, taking the credit of what democracy has done for us.

The Easter bunny and Easter egg are Egyptian new life in Spring and regeneration of life symbols. The ever green tree is northern symbol of eternal life and becomes our Christmas tree. The winter time celebration being pretty universal but that is left of it is the Christian interpretation.


CS, actually, the whole Christian holiday of Easter is originated from the Viking holiday of that name, in which they worshiped their goddess Easter of Fertility and the Harvest. But, the Christians feared the Vikings, who continuously invaded and distroyed their monasteries and enslaved their monks, so they offered to ordain a day for them relating to their previous pagan day but as a Christian day instead. And, the Vikings, being the magnificent traders they were, accepted their convert to Christianity(although, alot of them kept their old pagan religion as a compliment to Christianity) because nations gave more money and traded more with a nation that was 'civilized', meaning Christian.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: In case you haven't noticed, there are many religions that have no current follower, like that of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but are still religions none the less.

Of course that is true, but what is your point? These religions once had followers and that's why they existed. Today they don't have any followers and that's why they don't exist anymore. They are only a historical record. Those religions that have not been recorded are lost.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

@thomas,

My friend Thomas, i am sorry for my apparent aggressive side, for i hate being that way. i was only trying to express my statement, but i became too angered. sorry.

Now, to get back to the topic, you are right. those religions are lost. but, are they still philosophies?

[Truthbearer]

aaah now you may have something there Scameter..

is religion really philosophy?

because in all (my) truth, many religions are not spirituality.
too many egos/untruths/dogmas/beliefs/judgements/fears/control and large buildings.
Not enough spirit and soul.
nor Love and Acceptance.

xx Pat

[scameter]

@Truthbearer,

I am very concuring of your point.I am of the opinion that religion has been deeply tainted by the fake and unnecessary rituals and methodologies and terms and symbols and such that later followers of religions have inserted into religions. like, for instance, Buddhism. their masters or sages or teachers or whatever you wish to call them are called lamas. lamas. now, do you honestly think Buddha himself said that"The followers of my new faith will be called lamas"? No. That is one reason i like Taoism: it's lack of those unneeded methodologies and titles, for it seems to be in the purest form of it's self than are any other religions/philosophies of themselves.

[sonrisa]

Karl Marx put it best- "religion is the opium of the people"

perhaps Voltaire should of said that it is necessary to invent religion

[scameter]

Originally posted by @--
Karl Marx put it best- "religion is the opium of the people"

true, most religions are the opium of the people. but that opium can sour and become overated by it's dogmas and blind followers. that is why i prefer philosophical religions, like Taoism, that are mostly void of such potentially harmful opiums and dogmas. to me, religions such as Christianity, are only there for the people who really are not free-thinking enough to actually want to contemplate the fundementals of their religion, but just to have a set of dogmas and simplistic teachings that they can say they follow but never really have to understand them. now, i am not at all down playing Christianity, i am just saying that it has become, as Marx said, "an opium for the people", and that is very unfortuneate; because so many men in the past have given their entire lives, either scholarly or militarially, to the religion, and their reward for their service has become blindness by the contemporary Christians, unfortunately.

[sonrisa]

yes, & opium becomes a monkey on the back of the user....

how do you deal, Scameter, surrounded by all those GA baptists. I don't think I could put up with them.

[scameter]

Believe me, i hate it. there is like a church, usually babtist, every mile or so. but, if the people that attended the church actually believed in the faith and contemplated it's contents, then they would not be so bad. but, they just go in there and blindly follow the religion without every even thinking about what the preacher or tha Bible says. if their hypocritical blindness could be converted into a contemplateive adherence, then i wouldn't mind them too much. i still wouldn't go to church because that hypocritical flase morality they preach just makes me sick, but i wouldn't despise them like i do now.

[sonrisa]

Maybe they already do believe in the faith & its contents, if it is as you say, a hypocritical false morality. Certainly nothing to do with what Jesus taught.

[scameter]

Originally posted by @--
Maybe they already do believe in the faith & its contents, if it is as you say, a hypocritical false morality. Certainly nothing to do with what Jesus taught.
Except that they say that they follow and adhere to his teachings, but they don't, and most of them have never even read any of them.

[sonrisa]

exactly.

the faith I'm referring to is the hypocritical false morality spewing from the preacher's pulpit. That is what they believe & adhere to, & then they have the cojones to blame it on Jesus :shakehead:

sacrilege, plain & simple

[abba]

Plato introduced the concept of the "ideal form", that is the conceptual ideal of any "thing". He argued that the ideal form exists independently of any imperfect materializations of the form or any imperfect perceptions of those materializations. For every rose, there is an "ideal rose" that is the basis of the concept of a rose. He argued that only "Reason" could describe the ideal form, and only the soul could perceive the ideal form.

That was a pretty esoteric idea for it's time - and hasn't survived serious consideration through the ages.

Does any "thing" have a conceptual existence outside it's physical record/re-conceptualization by a human?? It would seem to depend upon what your religious beliefs are. If not, how are sins recorded? How is karma accounted? If we disbelieve in the wheel, does it disappear? or will we still be crushed?

................

We seem to live in an age where every question somehow begs the question of America's "religious right". Must it always be that the current version of "political power" dominates the thoughts of men. I tell you truly, an ancient sage has more sway with me than the manuverings of today's non-thinking, non-doing bunch of power grabbers.

[scameter]

Originally posted by @--
exactly.

the faith I'm referring to is the hypocritical false morality spewing from the preacher's pulpit. That is what they believe & adhere to, & then they have the cojones to blame it on Jesus

sacrilege, plain & simple
One of the only Christians to ever follow truly the religion, which those who can bear that character are few, is Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King Jr., lol. but, he is in my opinion the greatest Christian to ever live.

[vicente]

scameter One of the only Christians to ever follow truly the religion, which those who can bear that character are few, is Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King Jr., lol. but, he is in my opinion the greatest Christian to ever live.

Martin Luther,...the greatest Christian to ever live? OK,...if you think so.

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." -- Martin Luther

"girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops". Martin Luther

"The history of Luther provides just one example of why religion (not just Christianity), and ideology, whether it comes in the form of Buddhism, Judiasm, Islam, communism, politics, or any other belief system, creates the intolerant play against life and nature."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

As for the topic "Human Importance In Religion",....religion is that which steps between us and our direct experience. Therefore, all religion (sets of beliefs) is a hinderance to the evolution of humankind.

Although Buddhism is a religion for some,...the essence of Buddhisn is not a religion, but a process that transcends religion.

Vicente
:)

[scameter]

i'm not sure if he actually said all that, but if he did i'm sure he meant it differently than how you posted it. i mean, how could he have disliked women and been married to one and loved her very sincerely and absolutely? i mean, that was one reason he didn't like Catholicism, because of their distaste of monastic mutuality.

[Star]

If you view the purpose of mankind as the validation of creation through awareness and appreciation, then humankind is a intergal link in the knowing.

[scameter]

Essentially. as is our purpose to form a connection with the Ultimate Reality/Soul as we are essentially born with the knowledge that there could be more, or at least the capacity to believe that there is more than this, which shows that it is something inside of us that should be aknowledged and connected with. but, it is connected with by the attaination of human's true purpose: happiness, as is relative in attaination with the individual. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

What concerns Martin Luther, he was certainly a very brilliant individual. He was charismatic and an excellent speaker and writer, but I doubt that he was a "nice person". If you read what the intellectuals of his time say about him, especially Erasmus and Thomas Moore, he seems to have been quite a hothead. He was also a demagogue and a political opportunist with good connections to the then power elite of Germany. However, his greatest flaw -I think- is that he approved of violence as a valid political measure, especially in his writing "Wider die mörderischen Rotten der Bauern" ("Against the murderous peasants pack"), which inspired the bloody defeat of the peasants in the 1524 Peasants War. Luther also gave favourable opinion to the topic of the inquisition; he thought that the Bible justifies the death of witches and magicians. Finally, his 95 treatises triggered the reformation movement in Germany which overthrew the Roman domination of the church, tore Europe apart and claimed the lives of thousands of people. Luther was also an antisemitic who recommended to burn Jewish synagogues and to destroy the homes of the Jewish.

Thomas

[scameter]

Oh. well, i didn't know all of that. course, the 'intellectuals' weren't the greatest thing in the world then or now, being arrogant and usually overpowerful. and, the Catholic church had killed just as many men, i'm sure, as did Luther's inspired wars and conflicts. and, even though i despise the killing of 'witches' and 'magicians' you have to remember the time, witches and magicians were looked at terribly during that period of history and even though Luther was a different individual from the whole of Europe and from the Catholic church, he was still a devout monk and priest, and because magic was so persecuted during that era of obviously would support it, mainly because if he didn't they would most likely call him a magician himself and persecute him, giving the church merely another reason to persecute him. i tihnk he was a brilliant theologian with wonderful ideas and views theologically, and even though he did cause some conflicts and may have been a roudy man in his personal life, academically i think he did what was needed for Christianity, at least most of what he did. not to say that i like protestants, just that his ideas being issued into Christianity was needed.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: course, the 'intellectuals' weren't the greatest thing in the world then or now...

That's a bit of a "broad brush" judgment, don't you think? It would depend on the intellectual, wouldn't it?

scameter: Academically i think he did what was needed for Christianity...

Interesting. Why do you think so? I would say the world is generally better of without the likes of Luther, intellectual brilliance notwithstanding.

Cheers, Thomas

[VossistArts]

as i see it, things just are, then we call them things. religions are formed out of concepts that are meant to represent fundamental phenomena maybe, but by nature thoughts, concepts, memories, are without substance and only exist in a slight sense as long as there are minds who keep the thoughts "alive". ideas dont exist by themselves, they are created by people.what would an idea be without anyone to think and maintain it?. Maybe the fundamentally manifested " thing" that they attempt to represent or define would exist, but certainly not the concept or idea of it. Im pretty sure this is why in zen its stressed to abandon concepts.Of all things we can experience (probably) thoughts and concepts are the least "real", the most like an illusion almost entirely without substance.

As for religions, at least concerning the christianity that claims to involve jesus and the Buddhism that claims to involve the Buddha,i cant see their existances and practices being appropriate, at least not by what jesus and the historical buddha seemed to teach and especially practice. I think its fair to say these people taught a philosophy, but they clearly practiced a process of awakening that was personal despite their possibly manifesting achetypical events etc. AS i understand it, awakening is experienced initially in its fullest as we abandon thoughts and concepts, representitive and symbolic thinking and experience what is, directly. its not through process outside of ourselves designed to take us to this place that ultimately takes us there. It is through ourselves and our own efforts by way of our own path that we arrive, if we arrive at anything universal at all. Personally i dont subscribe to the idea that there are many paths to the One destination. I believe the destinations are variable.

[VossistArts]

Im aware that Im being repetitive in these posts. I apologize for that.

[scameter]

no, if you feel repitition is the means for which you wish to tred to omit your point than by all means, repeat.

but, i am judging the intellectuals by what i have studied of them and what i see of them today. most of them, in their supposed immense knowledge, are arrogant and closed-minded. and, i am judging that the Catholic church needed reformation because of their treatment of the people and of their power. did you know that the Catholic kings, or bishops and archbishops and cardinals, actually owned land and had things such as castles and such on them, with immense, immesne masses of money and power bestowed apon them by result of their askings of money from people. for instance, they would ask people to pay money for a piece of paper that made them have less time in pergatory. i think that the Catholic church needed reformation, at least it's people did and it's means of action.

and Vossi, good post, i am starting up a topic on philosophy board that i am giving much thought before i post it called Devotion. it's essentially about the meaning of life. i hope that will emit clarity to people on the meaning of life, however simple or ignorant it may seem is to the disgretion of the reader.

[CSwriter1]

In response to the orignal question, "Is Human contribution to religion and Human follwing of religion necessary, or can religion exist by it's self?"

I return with another philosopher but forget his name.
His focus was on the meaning of words. For example does pegasus exist? We know a pegasus is a winged horse, but also know they never existed. How is this?
How do we have a word and concept of a winged horse and yet there be no such thing? Can a pegasus effect our lives in anyway? Can it reward or punish us? Can it bring us food and or make our lives easier? How is a pegasus different from any God or religion?

[CSwriter1]

The problem was not solely the Catholic church, but a lack of gold, which meant a lack of money. Coins were made with the metals that gave them value, until just recently. Before Rome fell it exhausted its gold mine, and I don't think Europe was able to increase its gold until finding it the Americas. However it happened for a very long time there was not enough gold to support an economy based on gold. This greatly restricted trade and the develpment of anything.

Had Europe by able to resolve its money problem, perhaps the church would not have divided? It seems as long life is good otherwise, people can live with tyranny and stupid laws. They don't unite and rebell against something, until their material quality of life is greatly reduced and they are deprived of those things of which they assume it is their right to have.

[scameter]

I love your first statement, Cs, because words mean a great deal to me and i believe to a great number of people. i think that conceptual words, ones that have no physical presidence, may have meaning in feeling to the people for which read or hear of them. for instance, i have read The Lord of the Rings epic and it meant a great deal to me. and, i know that Dawrves and Elves and Hobbits and the One Ring doesn't truly exist, but that is the glory of fantasy, myth, and science fiction which most empirical people shun today, they can make you feel something, they make you feel a certain way for which pleases you. and, the variety of fantastical stories is beautiful, because that releaves monoghtomy of story from the fantastical stories, so that each individual, with their onw tastes, can choose from various fantastical pieces of art. and, is what is amazing is when something like the Greek myths or stories like the Lord of the Rings is taken in by many, many people that truly shows it's beauty. but, i think words exist as their own realities, if not even physically but as idea. that is why i think God exists. well, i believe He/It/She exists personally, but even if i didn't believe he(i'm just going to use he here for reference to God) exists, then he still would if by no other means than as an idea or a word.and, to me, things like pegasus is no different. it is just a matter of personal meaning.

and, to your second question, even though Europe was most likely short on gold, what did exist was in the greedy hands of kings and, essentially the same thing, priests of the Catholic Empire as i like to call it. if the Catholic church was true, they wouldn't need gold to run, they would just depend on te giving hands of people and nobility of Europe to supply them. and, how they were 'supplied' is by no means just the generosity of the common and noble man. the people were given pieces of papaer iwth false hope written apon them in exchange for most sometimes the only money that person had left, for that money to only be stowed away in the rather spacious purses of the lords of the church. to me, monastic life should have been the primary vocation of the Catholic church, and they should have went somewhere with many natural resources, and farmed and cut lumber and such for themselves, built their own church there, and made it public. they shouldn't have owned land or money or anything of the sort for themselves, only to immediatley apon gaining it to put it to the use of the church, not for power and personal land. and they should have made copies of the bible in all the languages of Europe and gave them away, especially apon the making of the printing press. and, even though this would have been a different issue, they should also have not conflicted science inorder to retain their own power in the faithful eyes of the people, but accepted scientific discovery as explaining the beautiful nature for which God had placed there, and then they should have all had a special vocation, such as gardener, scholar, copier of books particularly the Bible, teacher and the like inorder to keep the church as would be kept and organization. but, that is my view of the church and Catholicism. i think all monks should have been naturalists, scholars, philosophers, teachers and pilgrims.

[CSwriter1]

scameter, you say too much in one post. My mind can not retain several ideas all at once, so I forget one idea when I read the next one.

I want to address specifally this idea of not needing the pyramids. Well, you didn't say pyramids but were speaking the wealth dripping off cathedrals. Yes, the people do need this. Until we learn differently, it pleases us to worship our gods, goddesses, kings, in this way. These temples, pyramids, cathedrals are our shared bank account and our shared proof of what we can do. When project the best of ourselves into a god, goddess, king, then it stirs wonderful feelings within ourselves.

The misfortune is not these accumulations of wealth and what human energy can do, but when the people feel aleiniated for this point of human/god greatness.
What we should explore is why people come to feel aleinated, and than resentful. What demon thoughts do this sad thing to them?

[CSwriter1]

scameter "the people were given pieces of papaer with false hope written apon them in exchange for most sometimes the only money that person had left"

:) you are talking about lottery tickets aren't you? How much better life is with hope. It is well worth a person's last dollar don't you think? When they have hope they are more effective than when they have none.

B) I am amused as I take the side of the church. I usually take the side opposing the church, but you took that side, putting in on the church's side in this exploration of why things are as they are and the good or bad of it. Like these thoughts are just popping into my head as though I always saw the church's point of view, but I did not always think on this side of the fence. It is fun playing with you and having this experience.

[CSwriter1]

scameter " they should have made copies of the bible in all the languages of Europe and gave them away"

Oh my poor misguided child. That was the opening of a Pandora's box! We were once united and now we are divided because too many think themselves to be the authority of the God's word, and not longer turn to the true authority of God on earth. The pharoah!

This is sad. I am on a roll with this new vision of what is so, because you took my normal side of the argument, and I have to close and attend to family matters. I leave with a sign, and a prayer than when I return I have this wonderful experience again.

[scameter]

to your first statement, that is because people enjoy being devoted, and people are so focused and limited by the physical that that is the only thing they see. and, it is also the answer to your second paragraph in your first statement, we are too limited and focused on the physical.

CS:you are talking about lottery tickets aren't you? How much better life is with hope. It is well worth a person's last dollar don't you think? When they have hope they are more effective than when they have none.

no, not lottery. the church would sale pieces of papaer saying that the person buying it would have less time in pergatory. which was a lie. and, the church only did that for money. what if the citizen buying it could have bought fodd instead with that money, but bought that false piece of papaer instead for their money to only end up in the purse of a priest?

CS:I am amused as I take the side of the church. I usually take the side opposing the church, but you took that side, putting in on the church's side in this exploration of why things are as they are and the good or bad of it. Like these thoughts are just popping into my head as though I always saw the church's point of view, but I did not always think on this side of the fence. It is fun playing with you and having this experience.

lol well, i hope this isn't just playing to you, as it is not just so to me. but, i am glad you are enjoying it, as am i. and, i am not taking the opposing side against the church, i am only saying that they should have been different and that Luther was necessary. i am actually thinking about becoming a Christian. not a hypicritical modern Christian, but one of character, philosophy. because many of my views are very similar to the Christian views. i am still a Taoist though, even if i do become Christian.

[sonrisa]

CS- I gotta agree with Scameter re:the buying & selling of indulgences. It was*corrupt & a big rip. The idea was, if you buy an indulgence- the paper Scameter refers to, it was written absolution for any sins the Sinner might commit within a specified period of time- you basically got a sin-free day, week, however long you paid for. So instead of encouraging folx to be good & virtuous- earn their way into heaven, so to speak, indulgences allowed folx to be as nasty as they wanna be becuz their spot in heaven was bought & paid for. Not exactly model behavior. If there is no God nor heaven, then indulgence papers are unneccessary since there would be no place to cash them in. If there is a God in a place called heaven, & what we are taught about God is true, would s/he honor bogus papers that let folx be wicked & not honor God or God's creations? Either way it was a scam & the Church was raking it in.

[scameter]

thank you sonrisa.and yes, i did mean indulgences. just couldn't remember the exact identity of their name lol. :)

[Blackcrow]

I believe that in essence, we all use religion as a vice.
Humans seem to be incapable of assuming responsibility - in doing so, we attribute all 'good things' - be they moral or otherwise - that we do to a 'ying/god/christ' and on the flip side, all the 'bad things' to a 'yang/satin etc.
It is far easier to pass the buck rather than to acknowledge that we are fully responsible for our actions, even if they are of the purest of intentions (though, we rarely grant these to a god - our good deeds are ours and ours alone! The 'evil ones', however, god forbid that we were responsible for those...excuse the pun.)

In light of the above I would like to commend Thomas on his swift rebuttal regarding the notion that Religion can exist without the cognitions of Man.

Religion is a typically humane reaction. We have a bad habit of lying to ourselves and later on, with persistence, believing ourselves. Religion follows along a similar line - a shaky one at that in my opinion.
Christianity - a collaboration of lies/stories/fables, mixed with a multitude of virtues synonymous with many other religions or guidelines followed by millions -is a perfect example of one of these 'reactions'. A reaction of our inability to take a stand and admit that we are foolish victims of our own ways.
The entire basis of Christianity is that 'God' was around long before us. That we are merely puppets with free will (more like long puppeteer strings if you ask me). We managed to convince millions of people over the centuries that through our scriptures and our ability to record stories, evolve them into fables and later truth - gospel even (excuse the irony) that by some fantastical means there's a divine being.
This poor chap is dubbed with the responsibility of baring the weight of 'us' on his shoulders. All that we do wrong, not his fault - no, but rather a 'fallen one' the 'yang' of Christianity.

I am straying rather far from what I want to say so I will just outright say it. Christianity follows in the same light that a fish’s ability to feed does - it has evolved from that of the past, it's predecessor. In the same way, man hatched religion - tapped into one of our most easily manipulated weaknesses and in harnessing that - we have come to believe that everything happens for a reason. Every action has it's place and largely, that we are NOT responsible for our reactions to the full.

I realize that there are many holes in my argument, but it was not formulated as an argument - rather thoughts oozing out. Please feel free to rebut and pick at it - though, I must warn you...I will fester and stand up for what I have said.

[scameter]

i agree:)

[deepakgang]

Religion defines the way one should live to achieve lifes goal. Great thinkers might have got the divine knowledge of the goal of our life and the ways to achieve it. But ordinary people may not understand them. So they defined a set of ideas, rituals and rules one must follow. Like we have rules in our state for the harmony amoung people, there should be rules to achieve the destiny of our life.

But people simply fight amoung themselves telling their religion is better. Its like different routes to the same destination. But when will they realise it..

[scameter]

Eh i don't honestly believe that religion was made from divine inspiration. I think that, from evidence from most religions saying that humans were made first and are in the likeness of God and are his personal beings and such, that it was made by normal leaders and shamans to one give the normal people a code of living that suits their own liking and that of normal people's, and two to give people a reason to live because they cannot find it in their own plain life. :)