Post

[Ickmeister]

Religion is man made

[crisaor]

Partly, yes. But many could claim that religion is divine in origin, since it was created when *insert god here* appeared before man (or created him). Of course, others do claim that gods are merely a human invention designed to explain the events of the world and to deal with the doubts of the human soul. Even so, I'm missing your point here...

[Ickmeister]

I mean religion is man made. Made sometimes by people who are strong in their faith, and therfore think that you can only get as strong in your faith as he is by his way or something similar. And others have made it for control. Religion is basicly a list of rules set out by man ( I mean the whole race, not just the male part) For everyone to follow. When everyone is made differently and might need different beliefs. Spiritual Beliefs are made by God,or corrupted by something else He made (other than the human race). I am Christian if you cannot tell by this. Now I do believe that God Has Talked to some people and told them about Him, but that Satan has trespassed upon what He had said and twisted it.

I can't think of much more to say right now, so :D

[Dyrwen]

Religion is indeed man made. Although, 'gods' are also man made.

The only difference is, some can have a religion with or without gods. Those with a god or two tend to end up getting a religion from it. Or they take the deistic approach to avoid the whole "accidental mistranslation leads you into Hell" issue.

Religions based around deities, as the "Correct" deity choice, in all the many religions of the world, is a silly concept that proves Religion is most certainly man made, and had any "gods" cared to stop them all and just say "Hey you, stop that, I'm god, worship me" rather than damning them to a place of torment merely for feeling they picked the right one, is quite obtuse of a dictator of life.

I'll take my chances without any gods, nothing more to lose than anyone else. No matter the faith, there's always an opposing faith to question your possibilities of rightness. Man made as anything, but quite frankly, if it's not man made, I'd like to see some way to find out it wasn't made by man. And if that's not possible, then it's not worth even trying to waste time on making up who one thinks did it.

[Ickmeister]

you know... I'd rather live all my life Believing there is a God and when I die find out there isn't, Than live all my life believing isn't a God and when I die finding out there is.


also, why isn't there a stern emoticon?

[Dyrwen]

you know... I'd rather live all my life Believing there is a God and when I die find out there isn't, Than live all my life believing isn't a God and when I die finding out there is.


also, why isn't there a stern emoticon?
Living all your life and there not be any gods would mean you never would know that there was no gods. You'd be dead, no chance to say "Oh wait, no gods. Darn, guess that was a waste." It's pure complete non existence.

But at least we've each care to live our lives a certain way, not like I expect anyone to just give up their beliefs for some analyzed reason that I manage to come up with. "Pascal's Wager" is all I can say for you. As for your "belief in a God", I'd say "Which god?" but since you already said you were Christian, I can merely state "Perhaps your god is wrong, too." :)

Stern emoticon :x heh, ah the wonders of religious banter.

[Ickmeister]

Yep, It's fun playing off of each other

[=Monkey_King=]

Of course religion is man made.
Look at this exerpt from IMPORTANCE OF LIVING by Lin Yu Tang

Here the logic halts, for the origin of the Devil had to be explained, and when the medieval theologians proceeded with their usual scholastic logic to deal with the problem, they got into
a quandary. They could not have very well admitted that the Devil, who was Not-God, came from God himself, nor could they quite a-gree that in the original universe, the Devil, a Not-God, was co-eternal with God. So in desperation they agreed that
the Devil must have been a fallen angel, which rather begs the question of the origin of evil (for there still must have been another Devil to tempt this fallen angel) , and which is therefore unsatisfactory, but they had to leave it at that.

In my humble opinion it does not matter if Jesus was the REAL son of God or someone who recieved the holy spirit of God and therefore could call all his deeds done by God, and therefore, a son of God. Isnt this a good thing to test people? If they would obey orders from a human being or only from the powerful?

[Stanislaw]

Most relegions don't preach any thing that is bad. So all in all there really isn't anything wrong with any religion.

[blazeofglory]

Religion is man made

Yes, I agree

[jgweed]

That there are many different religions in the world certainly suggests that they were man-made. That many religions undergo transformation through history also suggest the same conclusion.

[Pendragon]

God made man, man made religion. Unfortunately, that is the way it is. If we believe that there is only one God, then others must be worshiping their view of that God. Differing views on God was what made the many different religions. If people could get it together, there would only be one Religion, the worship of God. But they cannot, so there are many religions...

:)

[jgweed]

To suggest that "God made man" is to argue from a religious viewpoint, which viewpoint in the next phrase is admitted to be made by man.

Moreover, even if we posit that there is only one God, there is no assurance that any man-made religion adequately understands its essence to the extent of being the "true" religion to the exclusion of any other.

[Pendragon]

To suggest that "God made man" is to argue from a religious viewpoint, which viewpoint in the next phrase is admitted to be made by man.

This is the religious forum. Am I to argue from any other point here? Evolution is science, not religion. I personally believe that God made everything in the beginning and things have evolved from there to be what they are today. This doesn't discount science while still giving God credit for creation. But science is not what we are dealing with here, but whether religion is mad made. God isn't, religions about how to worship Him are. Idols are just images of how a person defines God, and some have many versions of God, even making God both male and female. God is something beyond human recognition, so we have to view Him as we can. Making fences around our beliefs is what makes different religions. Instead of finding agreements, we find differences and cling to them. :)

[jgweed]

My point was conditional in nature, and about the implications of the argument itself which seems self-contradictory as it was presented, and apologize for not making my question perfectly clear. I believe I made absolutely no mention of "science" or did I disparage religiosity as a ground.

[Drkshadow03]

To suggest that "God made man" is to argue from a religious viewpoint, which viewpoint in the next phrase is admitted to be made by man.

It isn't self-contradictory because you're adding terms to his premise. Specifically you're adding the fact that to make the argument "G-d made man" requires one to hold already hold a religious viewpoint.

G-d could certainly have created man without being formulated by religion. Suppose He made man from clay just like a dredyl, then G-D disappears back into the universe to become the Aristotleian navel-gazer. Then man with some sort of Jungian memory lodged in his subconscious of his Creator creates a religion of artificial laws around him to worship said deity that said deity never ordered or commanded. Those whacky humans took the initiative themselves after creation and created religion.

You find in this example that in fact both premises would prove true and they are NOT self-contradictory: "G-D made man" and then "man made religion." The two can both be true without contradicting each other in the slightest. Now what you tried to do was link back the second premise with the first by showing that to even entertain the idea that "G-D made man" requires to already hold a religious viewpoint, which in fact is true to a certain degree. However, there is a difference in noting what assumptions one must make to entertain an idea and claiming that the ideas are contradictory because you've uncovered those assumptions (it ignores that you're still adding your own interpretive element to the initial premise).

After all, it could be factually true that G-D made man whether you hold a religious viewpoint or not.

[Pendragon]

It isn't self-contradictory because you're adding terms to his premise. Specifically you're adding the fact that to make the argument "G-d made man" requires one to hold already hold a religious viewpoint.

G-d could certainly have created man without being formulated by religion. Suppose He made man from clay just like a dredyl, then G-D disappears back into the universe to become the Aristotleian navel-gazer. Then man with some sort of Jungian memory lodged in his subconscious of his Creator creates a religion of artificial laws around him to worship said deity that said deity never ordered or commanded. Those whacky humans took the initiative themselves after creation and created religion.

You find in this example that in fact both premises would prove true and they are NOT self-contradictory: "G-D made man" and then "man made religion." The two can both be true without contradicting each other in the slightest. Now what you tried to do was link back the second premise with the first by showing that to even entertain the idea that "G-D made man" requires to already hold a religious viewpoint, which in fact is true to a certain degree. However, there is a difference in noting what assumptions one must make to entertain an idea and claiming that the ideas are contradictory because you've uncovered those assumptions (it ignores that you're still adding your own interpretive element to the initial premise).

After all, it could be factually true that G-D made man whether you hold a religious viewpoint or not.Thank you! Quite true. :)