There is only one common factor that unites every religion that has ever existed into one group

[TEPO]

will I did, and Zoroastrians is a straw man.

How so? According to the ancient religion of Zoroastianism, souls get judged and upon their good deeds may live forever. I believe I read long ago that Zoroastrianism is much older than Judaism. It’s based on the idea of ‘good thoughts’, during a time of politico-religious rule. During those days, politico-religious groups quarreled for power. Zoroastrianism was a ‘real’ religion.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired Zoroastrianism.

 

[TEPO]

People come up with one sect of Jews who had no doctrines and expect me to throw the whole idea away?



The Sadducees were just a group of temple dwellers, who followed the Torah word for word -nothing to be added or removed. They didn’t believe in the afterlife, but how can they explain Enoch?

…perhaps they denied Enoch because their reward was in this life only.

 

[TEPO]

Let’s disregard the sparse counterexamples for now and assume you’re right, TEPO. All religions believe in the afterlife. But as we’ve seen here, many religions believe in an afterlife for only a select few. So it’s not that religions feel that human life is so sacred that it can’t or won’t be extinguished; rather, these religions we’ve mentioned have carefully designed a sort of reward that can be given to reinforce good behavior while we’re here on Earth.

So I think a more blunt answer to the question posed by this thread is “All religions promise rewards for good people.”

So in other words, you’re claiming that religion is an ancient form of social order. A primitive form of Law. Is that right?

Why then did the native Americans and the Incas on the other side of the globe believe in afterlife then? Just coincidence?

 

[Oreoracle]

So in other words, you’re claiming that religion is an ancient form of social order. A primitive form of Law. Is that right?

I would say that religion was (and still is) a way to perpetuate the norms a given society preferred by encouraging each new generation to maintain the status quo. I think this is supported well historically; your parents’ religion has always been a good predictor of your own religion, and religious institutions are usually one of the last to adapt to serious cultural change. (The fact that the Catholic Church only recently apologized for the Inquisition in the 1990s is a particularly hilarious example.)

In a sense, religion is even more effective than law because it costs nothing to discourage behavior with religion, but it costs money to enforce a law.

Why then did the native Americans and the Incas on the other side of the globe believe in afterlife then? Just coincidence?

The reason religion is widespread is because, while cultures differ, human psychology remains largely the same. No one wants to die and cease to exist, or think their suffering is all for nothing, or feel that they are alone in the world, or that their existence is coincidental, etc. Almost everyone finds comfort in the promises of religion. That doesn’t make it true, but a religion promising an afterlife is at least as effective at keeping the peace as a presidential candidate promising tax breaks.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say that religion was (and still is) a way to perpetuate the norms a given society preferred by encouraging each new generation to maintain the status quo.

Do you believe that religion is able to change the culture?

IOW: how powerful do you believe religion is in changing the beliefs of a particular culture?

I think this is supported well historically; your parents’ religion has always been a good predictor of your own religion, and religious institutions are usually one of the last to adapt to serious cultural change. (The fact that the Catholic Church only recently apologized for the Inquisition in the 1990s is a particularly hilarious example.)

I don’t understand this reference to the Inquisition. Are you saying that it was the CC which was behind the Inquisition, or are you saying that they weren’t responsible for it?

In a sense, religion is even more effective than law because it costs nothing to discourage behavior with religion, but it costs money to enforce a law.

And here are you saying that religion influences the culture or is behind in catching up to the culture’s norms?

 

[Oreoracle]

Do you believe that religion is able to change the culture?

IOW: how powerful do you believe religion is in changing the beliefs of a particular culture?

If one nation conquers another and subjects the conquered nation to its religion, then that religion would certainly change the culture, yes. But once a nation has had a religion for a while, I think the religion is far more likely to resist change than to encourage it.

I’m not sure where you live, but consider the U.S. as an example. Christianity, culturally speaking, hasn’t brought anything new to the table for a long time, but instead tends to lag behind the rest of culture. It was late in decrying slavery, it was late at supporting women’s suffrage, it had mixed feelings about abolishing segregation, etc.

I don’t understand this reference to the Inquisition. Are you saying that it was the CC which was behind the Inquisition, or are you saying that they weren’t responsible for it?

It is historical fact that the Catholic Church was behind the Inquisition, yes. I was pointing out how “slow” religion is by noting that it took them centuries to apologize for something that was clearly morally wrong. Also keep in mind that the Pope at that time infallibly declared that the Inquisition was a just cause. It took 600 to 700 years for the Church to say “oops”.

And here are you saying that religion influences the culture or is behind in catching up to the culture’s norms?

It typically influences the culture by discouraging change that would otherwise naturally occur. For example, gay marriage would have been instituted long ago if not for Christianity in the U.S.

 

[nothingeasy]

How so? According to the ancient religion of Zoroastianism, souls get judged and upon their good deeds may live forever. I believe I read long ago that Zoroastrianism is much older than Judaism. It’s based on the idea of ‘good thoughts’, during a time of politico-religious rule. During those days, politico-religious groups quarreled for power. Zoroastrianism was a ‘real’ religion.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired Zoroastrianism.

just because your typing words doesn’t mean your rebuttal has merit, i blame myself for getting sucked in. never expected strawman arguments on a philosophy thread.
bye

 

[TEPO]

just because your typing words doesn’t mean your rebuttal has merit, i blame myself for getting sucked in. never expected strawman arguments on a philosophy thread.
bye

There is no strawman argument. For there to be a strawman, I would have had to have accused you of holding some made-up position that you don’t necessarily support… I think you’re just upset about something. I wish you would share what it is that’s bothering you.

 

[TEPO]

IMHO, Islamism is another politico-religious ideology similar to that of the Sadducees… As history repeats itself, the Islamists try to prevent Christianity from spreading just the same way the Sadducees tried.

Politico-religious groups eliminated the Zoroastrians the same way in ancient Persia.

…there is a difference between ideologies and religions. There is a subtle yet distinct separation that does exist. We have yet to unveil this separation. I think people are reluctant to do it because it hasn’t been talked about that much.

There is a difference between an Islamist and a Muslim.
There is a difference between a Sadducee and a Jew
There is a difference between a Roman Crusader and a Catholic.

The former being ideologies, the latter being spirituality based religions.

 

[PRmerger]

If one nation conquers another and subjects the conquered nation to its religion, then that religion would certainly change the culture, yes. But once a nation has had a religion for a while, I think the religion is far more likely to resist change than to encourage it.

Fair enough.

Now, one could see it as: once the religion has changed the culture, why would it (religion) feel the need to change. Resistance to change would seem to be…logical, no?

I’m not sure where you live, but consider the U.S. as an example. Christianity, culturally speaking, hasn’t brought anything new to the table for a long time, but instead tends to lag behind the rest of culture.

Yes. Once the truth has been professed, it seems peculiar to object to religion bringing anything "new’.

It was late in decrying slavery, it was late at supporting women’s suffrage, it had mixed feelings about abolishing segregation, etc.

As it was Christians who decried slavery, and supported women’s suffrage and voted to abolish segregation, I find this comment odd.

 

[PRmerger]

It is historical fact that the Catholic Church was behind the Inquisition, yes.

Were not secular govts also involved in the Inquisition?

I was pointing out how “slow” religion is by noting that it took them centuries to apologize for something that was clearly morally wrong.

True–it did take a long time for the Church to offer an apology.

Also keep in mind that the Pope at that time infallibly declared that the Inquisition was a just cause.

Source?

It typically influences the culture by discouraging change that would otherwise naturally occur. For example, gay marriage would have been instituted long ago if not for Christianity in the U.S.

Thank God for that!

 

[TEPO]

So I think a more blunt answer to the question posed by this thread is “All religions promise rewards for good people.”

And where did that idea come from? Where did individual organisms come up with the notion that by being “good” to others is best? The same place the idea that it’s possible to live forever? Why are they linked?

 

[meltzerboy]

Beep. Times up!

It’s LAD. Life after death.

That was the last part of the second sentence of the three sentence paragraph in post number 4…

All religions believe in life after death.

That’s not exactly true. Judaism during ancient times, particularly the Sadducees, did not believe in life after death. Even today, while it is part of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith, it is not heretical for Jews not to believe in life after death. It certainly is not and never was a focus in Judaism. I don’t think all Quakers believe in life after death either, and I’m not so sure about different forms of Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

[livingwordunity]

Is the one common factor that every religion is a religion?

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes. Once the truth has been professed, it seems peculiar to object to religion bringing anything "new’.

Many philosophies allow the truth to change over time. In other words, they propose not a dogma, but a means by which claims can be analyzed (think of the scientific method, for example).

As it was Christians who decried slavery, and supported women’s suffrage and voted to abolish segregation, I find this comment odd.

You’re going to find Christians on either side of any given issue simply because nearly everyone was a Christian or was afraid to admit they weren’t. It would be more interesting to compare the proportion of Christians who supported those movements with the proportions in other groups, but I doubt we’d find data on that. But again, it is a fact that in each of those movements, people cited the Bible to support slavery, or to promote the inferiority of women.

We also need to consider whether Christianity is what actually motivated Christians to promote progress. For example, feminism is what inspired women’s suffrage–Christianity simply stepped aside once it realized it was fighting a losing battle. It would be erroneous to infer from this that Christianity inspired women’s suffrage simply because Christians supported the movement.

 

[TEPO]

That’s not exactly true. Judaism during ancient times, particularly the Sadducees, did not believe in life after death. Even today, while it is part of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith, it is not heretical for Jews not to believe in life after death. It certainly is not and never was a focus in Judaism. I don’t think all Quakers believe in life after death either, and I’m not so sure about different forms of Buddhism and Hinduism.

So what happened to Enoch?

Do you believe in life after death?

Did the Pharisees believe in life after death?

 

[Oreoracle]

And where did that idea come from? Where did individual organisms come up with the notion that by being “good” to others is best? The same place the idea that it’s possible to live forever? Why are they linked?

Saying that being good to others is best is a tautology. You do a good action because it’s best and it’s best because it’s a good action. They mean the same thing.

As for why we are so willing to assert that goodness will be rewarded, I think we can find the answer in parenting, or in training a dog, or in any situation that makes use of conditioning. Rewarding good behavior reinforces that behavior, whether you’re taking your kids to the park, giving treats to your dog, or promising eternal bliss (or the opposite: threatening damnation for bad behavior). The difference is that religion merely promises it and has never been proven to actually give the rewards.

 

[PRmerger]

Many philosophies allow the truth to change over time. In other words, they propose not a dogma, but a means by which claims can be analyzed (think of the scientific method, for example).

'Tis true that philosophy offers a method for apprehending the truth.

And 'tis true also that our understanding of truth develops.

However, there are indeed truths that are immutable.

Otherwise, they are merely opinions

 

[PRmerger]

You’re going to find Christians on either side of any given issue simply because nearly everyone was a Christian or was afraid to admit they weren’t. It would be more interesting to compare the proportion of Christians who supported those movements with the proportions in other groups, but I doubt we’d find data on that. But again, it is a fact that in each of those movements, people cited the Bible to support slavery, or to promote the inferiority of women.

And that is why we Catholics do not interpret the Bible outside of the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible.

We also need to consider whether Christianity is what actually motivated Christians to promote progress. For example, feminism is what inspired women’s suffrage–Christianity simply stepped aside once it realized it was fighting a losing battle. It would be erroneous to infer from this that Christianity inspired women’s suffrage simply because Christians supported the movement.

There is no Church more pro-woman than the Catholic Church, Oreoracle.

 

[meltzerboy]

So what happened to Enoch?

Do you believe in life after death?

Did the Pharisees believe in life after death?

I’m not arguing against life after death; I’m refuting your statement that all religions have this belief in common. According to Genesis, Enoch was taken by G-d, so presumably he went to heaven. Later interpretation has it that he simply died before his time and before he could commit evil deeds since he was such a pious man. The Pharisees, as distinct from the Sadducees (there were other differences as well), did believe in life after death and modern Judaism is mainly in the Pharasaic tradition. However, as I stated previously, Judaism’s emphasis is not on the World to Come but on the present world, how to make it better, and in so doing conform to G-d’s Will.