If religion

[TheFifthElement]

is not to blame for the terrible things that are done in its name then can it be credited for the good things that are done in its name?

For example, if someone were to say: 'religion is bad because religion has been the cause of many wars' then I would anticipate many people arguing against this point, on the basis that religion is not the cause of war, the desire for power/land is. Religion is merely the excuse. I entirely agree with this. Religion in itself is an ideology, it takes a human desire to push that ideology into violence, and a desire for power is generally at the root of it.

So if someone does something good in the name of religion can you really credit the religion with it? In the same vein as the argument above: religion is an ideology, but it takes something else to prompt that into a good deed. So, someone might say: I give to charity because I am a Christian but could it be argued that that person gave to charity because they wanted to do good and the Christian faith gave them a channel through which to do it?

Logically, it would seem, they are two sides of the same thing. So if one is true, the other is true.

Not looking to start a religious war here (please), but would be interested to see what people think.

[billl]

One of the early things that sometimes comes out in a "Believer" v, "Atheist" debate is the believer's question: "Why would people be good if there were no God? How could there be morality without a God?"

It is amazing how often this question is asked right at the beginning, as if believers really imagine that they would be murderous rapists, and slaughter their own kith and kin without some sort of god threatening them with Hell.

[sixsmith]

It is doubtless true that religion is often the mere conduit to good works or bad deeds, a point made often by Hitchens, Harris et al. That said, I think it is overly simplistic to suggest that it is always so. It seems to me that the more extreme forms of religious belief inculcate and shape the desire for violence, power, selflessness etc. Indeed, I think it would be a grave error to persist with the contention that religion is only the excuse. History tells us that human beings are pretty good conduits.

[Virgil]

is not to blame for the terrible things that are done in its name then can it be credited for the good things that are done in its name?


Not sure who is actually saying that no wars are a result of religion. Some wars are and some aren't. That's a fallacy of all or nothing - I forget the rhetorical term, but it's where the argument is justified by arguing that because some things are so, then all must be so. Where most of this issue comes up is by those who claim that if it wasn't for religion wars would be eliminated. No obviously that's not true. Most wars are not because of religion but some are. The Protestant/Catholic wars of the 16th century are point of fact. But when you consider the truely deadly wars of the recent centuries - the Napoleonic Wars, the wars of colonialism, both World Wars, the Cold War, which wasn't always just cold, there is no doubt that wars don't frequently occur because of religion.

As to the good things, I have seen several now, not just one, studies that show that religious people are more inclined to donate to charity, more inclined to contribute their time in charitable efforts, and are significantly opposed to the heinous practice of abortion, the killing of the unborn. It's not all or nothing here either, but a statistical bias.

[JuniperWoolf]

To say I gave to charity because I'm a Christian is just kind of creepy. So if no one told you not to, you'd kick homeless people? If anyone were to tell me that the only thing that inspires them to help people in need is their religion, I'd be vary wary.

[Virgil]

To say I gave to charity because I'm a Christian is just kind of creepy. So if no one told you not to, you'd kick homeless people? If anyone were to tell me that the only thing that inspires them to help people in need is their religion, I'd be vary wary.

No, Christianity (and I'm sure other religions as well) teaches compassion for all people. For Christians there is divinity in every single human being. If you really have Christianity in your heart, you will see the Christ and his suffering in every person. I'm sorry you find that creepy.

[OrphanPip]

As to the good things, I have seen several now, not just one, studies that show that religious people are more inclined to donate to charity, more inclined to contribute their time in charitable efforts, and are significantly opposed to the heinous practice of abortion, the killing of the unborn. It's not all or nothing here either, but a statistical bias.

Those stats are slightly misleading. In the USA it is largely true. It is explained by the community alienation of atheist. Sociologist think that atheist in the USA are more likely to be antagonistic towards their community because they feel more marginalized than isolated, so they donate less to their community. We should also beware of the inflation of charity donation figures, because they often include projects that aren't really beneficial, but are merely supporting missionary preaching and some projects that are actually damaging. Moreover, atheist are naturally resistant to donation to established Christian organizations.

Atheist give money, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are good examples of that: Buffet is the third richest person in the world and has set aside 99% of his wealth for donation to charity. Per capita, the primarily atheist Sweden gives more money than the primarily Christian USA. In fact, the USA on a per capita rate of donation ranks behind most of Europe and Canada (though all the top donating countries are in roughly the same range, with the Scandinavian countries having particularly large levels of donation). It also happens to have more theist than those countries. Japan ranks about equal with the USA, despite being primarily atheist.

Ultimately, religion doesn't really have that much to do with charitable behavior, but feelings of community do.

[Scheherazade]

Ultimately, religion doesn't really have that much to do with charitable behavior, but feelings of community do.I strongly agree with this. What's more, those whose charity stems from a sense of religious obligation usually fail to prefer their own religion over others'. Ie, Christians may not be as generous while donating to Muslim cause and vice versa.

Personally speaking, I donate more or less 5% of my income every year but don't get involved in any religious organisations. The world does not need any more churches, mosques or synanogoes, I believe. Why not contribute towards opening more schools all over the world?

Now that Christmas is approaching, can I encourage everyone at least to have a look at this website (http://www.unicef.org.uk/store/InspireGifts.aspx) at least?

[papayahed]

Ultimately, religion doesn't really have that much to do with charitable behavior, but feelings of community do.


You have hit the nail on the head. In my own personal experience back home I had no trouble giving to a few certain religious organizations that I thought did a good service for the community (job training programs, shelters, etc.). Now that I live in a very religious community I would never dream of giving a dime to any religious organization around here. I'm actually surprised at how anti- I've become since moving here.


more later, I've got to go see babies..

[The Comedian]

Logically, it would seem, they are two sides of the same thing. So if one is true, the other is true.

Yeah. I pretty much agree with you. Positive acts of kindness, giving, tolerance, and patience are ultimately individual choices. And our obligations to ideologies simply motivate us toward one action or another.

One could ask a compelling question: is faith a high-functioning motivator for individuals to do good?

But on the whole, Fifth, I think your logic is pretty sound.

[Virgil]

Those stats are slightly misleading. In the USA it is largely true. It is explained by the community alienation of atheist. Sociologist think that atheist in the USA are more likely to be antagonistic towards their community because they feel more marginalized than isolated, so they donate less to their community.
I have no idae what you mean by alienated atheists. The atheists I know here are pretty happy and proud of their atheism. Frankly that sounds like pure psychobabble mixed with anti-Americanism.


We should also beware of the inflation of charity donation figures, because they often include projects that aren't really beneficial, but are merely supporting missionary preaching and some projects that are actually damaging. Moreover, atheist are naturally resistant to donation to established Christian organizations.
Charitable giving is charitable giving. I can cite lots of bull **** secular charitable organizations, like save the red titted miniture rat (sarcasm :p). Global warming is the biggest farce since Freud and what a waste in my opinion of all the money that get's collected in the name of that. Charity is based on people's values and not everyone is going to agree on what is worthwhile or not. Charity is giving up part of one's resources for a cause, whether everyone agrees on that cause or not. Charitable giving is charitable giving.


Atheist give money, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are good examples of that: Buffet is the third richest person in the world and has set aside 99% of his wealth for donation to charity.
I didn't know Buffett and Gates were atheists. Good for them if they are. I never said atheists weren't good people. I said there was a bias in charitable giving.


Per capita, the primarily atheist Sweden gives more money than the primarily Christian USA. In fact, the USA on a per capita rate of donation ranks behind most of Europe and Canada (though all the top donating countries are in roughly the same range, with the Scandinavian countries having particularly large levels of donation).
Baloney. What you are looking at is a per nation giving through the government, and yes the US gov't for reasons I'll get to give less than other nations. One reason is that the US gives huge amounts in private, individual doantions. The US gov't cites about $30 billion dollars from the gov't but and additional $300 billion from individuals and corporations.

"What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.


Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

And if you break it down in this chart you can see on a GDP basis:

http://notyourdaddy.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giving.png?w=470

Those numbers are normalized to GDP, which factors out national wealth, meaning it puts wealth on an equal footing.

And getting back to the reasons why the US gov't doesn't contribute as much is also because it maintains a military that is reactive for quick disaster relief across the world, not to mention peace keeping missions and the money of our defense system that goes for stability across the world. European gov'ts spend hardly anything on their military, relying you guess who for their defense. And not to mention US gov't spending on medical research. Not everything that that is spent for the good of all gets counted in that national charity.

Frankly I don't consider government distribution of tax payer money as charity. Anything that's taken whether a person has a say so or not is not chairty.


It also happens to have more theist than those countries. Japan ranks about equal with the USA, despite being primarily atheist.

Ultimately, religion doesn't really have that much to do with charitable behavior, but feelings of community do.

I can't speak to Japan but you mentioned Sweden. While Sweden is predominantly atheists, it is not eclusively so. At least a quarter of the population believes in God and there is a good percentage that believes in some sort of spiritual condition to life. I don't know how you discern who propells the charitable causes. All I said was that studies have shown that there is a bias in charitable giving from religious people.


I strongly agree with this. What's more, those whose charity stems from a sense of religious obligation usually fail to prefer their own religion over others'. Ie, Christians may not be as generous while donating to Muslim cause and vice versa.

I don't think that's really true. I can't speak to Muslim charity (I just don't know) but Christian charities are quick to relieve suffering
whereever it may happen. I donate to Catholic Relief Services and that goes all over the world, with no regard to religion. Muslim countries are probably poorer than western countries on average, so they may not be as capable to spread their money around.


Personally speaking, I donate more or less 5% of my income every year but don't get involved in any religious organisations.
That's highly commendable of you, and I remember you donating your hair once, which I know was hard.


Now that Christmas is approaching, can I encourage everyone...
Am I the only one who sees the irony of that? :lol: Last time I checked Christmas was a religious holiday built upon compassion for a little child. Maybe religion has stamped compassion onto society from which even atheists indirectly absorb it. :wink5:

I stand by what I said: studies have shown a bias that religious people give more than not. And we haven't even discussed donating one's time to community and good works.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hmm....how many of our schools and hospitals were started by Christian organizations?

How many were started by atheist organizations?

[OrphanPip]

Hmm....how many of our schools and hospitals were started by Christian organizations?

How many were started by atheist organizations?

About 10,000 by the CCP in China in the last 50 years, but what does this have to do with anything. Most schools functioning today were set up by the government. Those older than that were founded when being openly atheist was not a sensible thing to do. Most recently founded religious schools in the West are awful, awful schools.




I stand by what I said: studies have shown a bias that religious people give more than not. And we haven't even discussed donating one's time to community and good works.

No, I agree that in the USA the religious give more than atheist. But it is a product of the existence of the community.

Atheist do not organize to give money, because atheist do not organize period. They don't get together once a week to discuss atheism. The few atheist groups that do exist have barely any membership. I'm quite happy donating my time and money to project, being involved with CSPCA for several years and volunteering with recent immigrants to help them learn French and English. I used to donate blood, but I'm not legally allowed to do that anymore. But, like most atheist, I refuse to give anything to religious organizations because I feel they do not behave ethically, just as I wouldn't expect a Catholic to be donating to supporting abortion access in the third world.

I don't see how you don't think atheist in the USA are alienated from the community at large when polls show that they are highly mistrusted, and a majority of Americans say they would not vote for someone who was an atheist.

[Virgil]

No, I agree that in the USA the religious give more than atheist. But it is a product of the existence of the community.

Atheist do not organize to give money, because atheist do not organize period. They don't get together once a week to discuss atheism. The few atheist groups that do exist have barely any membership. I'm quite happy donating my time and money to project, being involved with CSPCA for several years and volunteering with recent immigrants to help them learn French and English. I used to donate blood, but I'm not legally allowed to do that anymore. But, like most atheist, I refuse to give anything to religious organizations because I feel they do not behave ethically, just as I wouldn't expect a Catholic to be donating to supporting abortion access in the third world.

I suppose the surveys I saw were done in the US, and since i can't/won't speak for other nations with any knowledge (I get perturbed when non-Americans think they understand the US without ever being here - and I'm not referring to you O-P, just a general statement) I will leave it at that. I don't know what it is like in other countries.


I don't see how you don't think atheist in the USA are alienated from the community at large when polls show that they are highly mistrusted, and a majority of Americans say they would not vote for someone who was an atheist.
I'm truly oblivious to what you're referring to. Are you speaking about teens or adults? I have not seen this issue come up.

I don't blame you for not giving to religious organizations. I can understand. There are organizations I would never give to on my personal principle. My point was that all giving is done from the heart. Giving up money (and time) especially for people who aren't rich is a noble thing in my eyes.

Alienation is a funny thing. Almost everyone can feel alienation. I knew a kid in high school who was religious who was definitely alienated. I'm sure an athesits teen under certain circumstances, as a black teen living in a white neighborhood or a white teen in a black neighborhood, gay teens as you probably know, non-athletic teens in a jock atmosphere, mediocre students in a school for advanced kids, short people, etcetera. Almost all teens face some sort of alienation. [I guess this is way off topic. Sorry.]

[Ecurb]

I think (although I'm not sure) that donations to churches are "charitable" and can be written off on one's taxes in the U.S. That being the case, it's hardly surprising that church members give more to charity than atheists. Mormons are required to tithe 5% of their income. In some cults, people are required to give far more than that.

The question (and I don't know the answer) is: if we eliminate donations to churches (which are used mainly to support the religious organization, pay the ministers, and build infrastructure, not to feed and clothe the starving), do religious people still give more to charity than atheists in the U.S.?

By the way, I live in the U.S., in Eugene, OR. Despite the statistics about the overwhelming religiosity of Americans, I barely know a single religious person. Here in Eugene, atheists are certainly not alienated, although the more formal social networking provided by church attendance may still make church-goers feel more like a part of the community.

[Scheherazade]

I don't think that's really true. I can't speak to Muslim charity (I just don't know) but Christian charities are quick to relieve suffering whereever it may happen. I donate to Catholic Relief Services and that goes all over the world, with no regard to religion. Muslim countries are probably poorer than western countries on average, so they may not be as capable to spread their money around. Under normal circumstances, all religious organisations aim to spread "the word" while helping others. Probably they do it to share what they believe to be "right" but, the fact remains that they do.
Am I the only one who sees the irony of that? :lol: Last time I checked Christmas was a religious holiday built upon compassion for a little child. Maybe religion has stamped compassion onto society from which even atheists indirectly absorb it. :wink5:Not sure why that is ironic. Regardless of how I feel about religious institutions and charities, I am not arrogant enough *yet* to ignore the fact that millions of people will be celebrating Christmas all over the world. So, when it is unavoidable, I am only hoping that at least couple of people would consider sharing their previleges with others. What's more, I give gifts on such occassions not because I celebrate them but because the other person does.

And UNICEF is far from being a religious organisation.

we haven't even discussed donating one's time to community and good works.Yes, this is an aspect of charity that is often looked upon and no doubt religious organisations do a lot in this respect.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm just going to chime in here to again state for the record (as I guess I'm going to have to do every year) that the holiday season doesn't belong to Christians, and wasn't started by Christians.

/out.

[Virgil]

I'm just going to chime in here to again state for the record (as I guess I'm going to have to do every year) that the holiday season doesn't belong to Christians, and wasn't started by Christians.

/out.

And for the counter record, frankly Juniper that is just so silly.

[JuniperWoolf]

And for the counter record, frankly Juniper that is just so silly.

Silly that I have to keep repeating myself. I'm just going to post links to past threads next time you go on about Christianity and the holidays.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48990&page=2


I was told that the pagans who became christian (in Britain, brought by the Romans and then when they left christianity remained) just decided to make their solstice feast a christian feast... they didn't take religion as seriously as people do nowadays, there are some tablets that pray to both the christian god AND Dionysus (which is so weird that it made me tilt my head like a dog when I first heard about it). They'd pray to whoever if they thought it would get them what they wanted. They didn't really care about continuity, they had other things to worry about (like not freezing or starving to death) and the tradition just happened to remain. They needed a solstice party because they were cold and depressed during the darkest time of year, and a nice yule feast on the longest night filled a void. Drinking, fresh meat, sex sex sex... When religion started to be used as a tool of control, the powers that be decided to made christmas Jesus' birthday so that it wouldn't be just a drunken sin-filled party in the name of their lord.

(In mock-overzealous-priest voice) Christmas must be a time of humility during which you reflect on all that god has done for you and all that he can take away, and for you to feel charitable and give money to the church.

[Virgil]

First of all, that is one theory among several as to how the 25th of December was selected. Second, does it matter how it was selected? People for centuries have been celebrating CHRISTMAS on that day, not winter solstice or whatever. If it wasn't for Christianity, Dec 25th would today be a blank day on the calendar. In fact in Eastern Orthodox Churches, because of different calendars, Christmas IS celebrated on a different day than December 25th. December 25 does not say Winter Solstice on their calendar. It is blank.


Some Eastern Orthodox national churches, including those of Russia, Georgia, Egypt, Ukraine, the Macedonia, Serbia and the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem mark feasts using the older Julian Calendar. December 25 on that calendar currently corresponds to January 7 on the more widely used Gregorian calendar. Oriental Orthodox churches also use their own calendars, which are generally similar to the Julian calendar. The Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates the nativity in combination with the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6. Most Armenian churches use the Gregorian calendar, but some use the Julian calendar and thus celebrate Christmas Day on January 19, and Christmas Eve on January 18 (according to the Gregorian calendar).[21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

How do you account for those that celebrate Christmas on other than Dec 25th?

In fact your very words reveal it is a Christian holiday:
"I was told that the pagans who became christian..." They became Christians. That's the bottom line and they were celebrating Christmas. {edit}

[JuniperWoolf]

First of all, that is one theory among several as to how the 25th of December was selected. Second, does it matter how it was selected? People for centuries have been celebrating CHRISTMAS on that day, not winter solstice or whatever.

If Christianity didn't exist people would still celebrate on the winter solstice because it's a depressing time and people celebrate during depressing times (I can find you stats if you want). Most people in Canada don't even associate Christmas with religion, so whether they term it a solstice feast or not, a solstice feast is what it is (holiday celebration devoid of religious meaning).

{edit}

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g
Please show respect towards other people's religious beliefs.

If you find yourself unable to do so, feel free to avoid this section of the Forum.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.
A: Discussion of any and all faiths and spiritualities (http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm), and religious and or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=respect&searchmode=none) the beliefs of others.
Respect the fact that someone might not agree with you.
Respect the fact that there are others with different points of view.
Respect the fact that people are entitled to post their opinion as long as it is done in a way that is not inflammatory or disrespectful to others.
Respect the fact that there are members here representing myriad faiths, religions and spiritualities.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=148703

[Ecurb]

I don't think there's much doubt that many Christmas traditions had pagan origins. Why would that be surprising? The strange thing is that some people use this fact as a ponderous weight with which to blugeon Christianity. Here's C.S. Lewis's take on a similar (if not identical) subject:


But I am not a naturalist. I believe that in the huge mass of mythology which has come down to us a good many different sources are mixed—true history, allegory, ritual, the human delight in story telling, etc. But among these sources I include the supernatural, both diabolical and divine. We need here concern ourselves only with the latter. If my religion is erroneous then occurrences of similar motifs in pagan stories are, of course, instances of the same, or a similar error. But if my religion is true, then these stories may well be a preparatio evangelica, a divine hinting in poetic and ritual form at the same central truth which was later focussed and (so to speak) historicised in the Incarnation. To me, who first approached Christianity from a delighted interest in, and reverence for, the best pagan imagination, who loved Balder before Christ and Plato before St Augustine, the anthropological argument against Christianity has never been formidable. On the contrary, I could not believe Christianity if I were forced to say that there were a thousand religions in the world of which 999 were pure nonsense and the thousandth (fortunately) true. My conversion, very largely, depended on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the acutalization, the entelechy, of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man. And I still think that the agnostic argument from similarities between Christianity and paganism works only if you know the answer. If you start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin: just as if you started by knowing that there were no such things as crocodiles then the various stories about dragons might help to confirm your disbelief. But if the truth or falsehood of Christianity is the very question you are discussing, then the argument from anthropology is surely a petitio.

[Virgil]

I guess everyone converted to Christianity, so there was no one left to celebrate winter solstice. Otherwise there would still be a continuous tradition going back two thousand years. What can I tell you. Not worth arguing over.

[JuniperWoolf]

I guess everyone converted to Christianity, so there was no one left to celebrate winter solstice. Otherwise there would still be a continuous tradition going back two thousand years. What can I tell you. Not worth arguing over.

{edit} not many ancients knowingly and willingly converted to christianity out of love for the christian god. Conversion was forceful. The Christian holiday tradition was imposed on people which makes it shallow, but the holiday's roots are deeper and inborn. When your environment sucks, you try to make it nicer (ergo the solstice feast). It's simple.

[Virgil]

My argument against this was deleted. I cited historical facts, which I guess were an insult. I'll try to put it nicer: not many ancients knowingly and willingly converted to christianity out of love for the christian god. Conversion was forceful. The Christian holiday tradition was imposed on people which makes it shallow, but the holiday's roots are deeper and inborn. When your environment sucks, you try to make it nicer (ergo the solstice feast). It's simple.

I'm sorry, you just don't know your ancient history. There was no forced conversions. Pagans were allowed to worship in the empire. They didn't have certain privileges but they were not by and large persecuted. Sure there were instances some polemicist can demagogue over (so that some people can be suckered), but there was no wide spread persecutions. As far as ancient power went, Christian Rome was extremely tolerant. You don't know what you're talking about.

[TheFifthElement]

I guess everyone converted to Christianity, so there was no one left to celebrate winter solstice. Otherwise there would still be a continuous tradition going back two thousand years. What can I tell you. Not worth arguing over.
:lol: There is a continuous tradition. It may be hard for you to appreciate it because it seems that for you what is important is the Christian element of the tradition. Which is understandable given your faith. But there are many elements of the festival of Christmas which do not have their roots in Christian doctrine. If the festival I celebrate contains all of those elements which are outside Christian doctrine and none of the ones which are within, then it is arguable that what I celebrate is not 'Christmas' in its Christian terms but is measurably closer to Yuletide or Winter Solstice on to which Christmas was overlaid. So the tradition continues. You could argue that people could chose not to celebrate it, but why should they? You can't go to work even if you wanted to, it's an enforced public holiday, and if you're heart does not embrace the Christian message then it is simply a good excuse to have a party, spend time with friends and loved ones and feast against the cold, dark, depressing winter nights. My druidic ancestors were celebrating the winter solstice at this time of year long before Christmas came along. Should I ignore their tradition because another group jumped on the bandwagon?

Heck, I celebrate Eid with my neighbours, but that doesn't make me a Muslim, does it? And you have previously argued, Virgil, that just because the festival of Christmas as we celebrate it contains pagan elements, that does not make you a pagan. The same is true in reverse.

Everyone did not convert to Christianity, as you well know. Paganism never died out and the celebration of Winter Solstice and Yuletide did not either. It was just labelled something else. For some people, you could argue many people, it gained a deeper meaning: Christmas and that's fine. But because that is true for you, that doesn't make it true for everyone.

And just to point out, this is very much off-topic. Any chance of getting back on?

[YesNo]

Everyone did not convert to Christianity, as you well know.

The idea of "converting" may be an idea somewhat peculiar to Christianity with its concern about the "Great Commission" to announce its belief to the entire world. Does it really matter outside a Christian context?

Theoretically, when "all nations" have heard about Jesus then he will return and the world can end (as we know it). At least, that is what I heard a Christian missionary tell me.

But I don't think it is accurate to say that people "convert" as much as to say that their beliefs "move up". That is, they imitate what richer and more powerful people are doing. If there are no such role models, they continue to believe what their families currently believe in. This "moving up" doesn't have to be a movement toward Christianity. It may involve becoming an atheist attracted by the success of science.

The original topic of the thread asks if religion should be credited with the good things its individual adherents do, but be excused when those individuals do evil. For example, should the Muslim religion be credited for the charitable activity of its members, but not be condemned for the actions of the those who flew planes into the Twin Towers in New York City? Should Christianity be credited for the charitable activity of its members, but not be condemned for the invasion of Iraq?

I don't know the answer.

[Virgil]

:lol: There is a continuous tradition. It may be hard for you to appreciate it because it seems that for you what is important is the Christian element of the tradition. Which is understandable given your faith. But there are many elements of the festival of Christmas which do not have their roots in Christian doctrine. If the festival I celebrate contains all of those elements which are outside Christian doctrine and none of the ones which are within, then it is arguable that what I celebrate is not 'Christmas' in its Christian terms but is measurably closer to Yuletide or Winter Solstice on to which Christmas was overlaid. So the tradition continues.
Not if Christians who converted and kept some elements of their previous tradition and were reinterpreted as Christian. If they are reinterpreted as Christian, they are Christian. They become part of Christianity, especially if it's widespread. It's entirely possible that those pagans who celebrated winter solstice owe that celebration to a previous culture that they absorbed. In fact given that so many different cultures have some form of winter solstice, it's highly likely. Are you ready to claim that winter solstice is not a druid holiday? That's what your logic would lead to.


You could argue that people could chose not to celebrate it, but why should they?
You can argue that, and it's theoretically possible, but it's historically wrong. There is no continuous culture that celebrates winter solstice within the western world. If you know of any, let me know.


You can't go to work even if you wanted to, it's an enforced public holiday, and if you're heart does not embrace the Christian message then it is simply a good excuse to have a party, spend time with friends and loved ones and feast against the cold, dark, depressing winter nights. My druidic ancestors were celebrating the winter solstice at this time of year long before Christmas came along. Should I ignore their tradition because another group jumped on the bandwagon?
Your parents and grandparents and their parents were druids? You have a continuous tradition going back to pre Christian times? I doubt it.


Heck, I celebrate Eid with my neighbours, but that doesn't make me a Muslim, does it? And you have previously argued, Virgil, that just because the festival of Christmas as we celebrate it contains pagan elements, that does not make you a pagan. The same is true in reverse.
You have distorted my point. You have no continuous tradition within your ancestry of celebrating Eid. I'm not talking about anyone who has decided to be a druid pagan in the last century. I'm talking about a continuous tradition going back millennium.


Everyone did not convert to Christianity, as you well know. Paganism never died out and the celebration of Winter Solstice and Yuletide did not either. It was just labelled something else. For some people, you could argue many people, it gained a deeper meaning: Christmas and that's fine. But because that is true for you, that doesn't make it true for everyone.
I'm afraid that over the course of several hundred years that paganism (which obviously was not genocidally persecuted since it lasted so long) was gone, either through conversions or intermarriages. By the year 1000 (that's usually given as the historical date), most of Europe was completely Christian. There were probably enclaves in upper Scandinavia. Not sure when they finally disappeared.


And just to point out, this is very much off-topic. Any chance of getting back on?
I think the original subject was completed. I thought I put a nail in that argument. :wink5:

[BienvenuJDC]

As a very devout Christian, I would have to say that I see practically no roots of Christmas in the Bible at all. It's just not there. Sure, the spirit of giving and selflessness is found in the Scriptures, but for the most part, Christmas is a Catholic fabrication woven with pagan traditions (more pagan than not). And for the record, Catholicism is merely a sect of Christianity based more on their own traditions and writings than what's written in the Bible. Sorry....don't mean to offend any Catholics, but Catholicism is not a pure Christian faith.

Now back to the original post (and tying it to the current topic), I'd like to see how everyone defines "religion". Do you see it as:
1) a doctrine (a group of teachings)
2) an organized governing body
3) a group of followers
4) or something else?

[Virgil]

And for the record, Catholicism is merely a sect of Christianity based more on their own traditions and writings than what's written in the Bible. Sorry....don't mean to offend any Catholics, but Catholicism is not a pure Christian faith.


I'm not offended, but frankly that's ridiculous too. Absolutely ridiculous and is one of the points that Protestants persuade themselves of their superiority. I'm not getting into a religious argument but anyone that knows Catholicism knows how deeply ingrained it is in the Bible. Catholics put together the Bible.

[L.M. The Third]

I've been watching this discussion with interest. I'd agree that not only the time when Christmas is celebrated, but also many of the traditions are merely baptized paganism. (What I seem to recall is the sun worship of Mithraism being a prominent factor.)

I don't understand this need to justify Christmas as a Christian holiday. As a Christian, I'm happy to commemorate and remember Christ's birth at any time, but centuries of practice, or tradition, cannot change the holiday's origin.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm not offended, but frankly that's ridiculous too. Absolutely ridiculous and is one of the points that Protestants persuade themselves of their superiority. I'm not getting into a religious argument but anyone that knows Catholicism knows how deeply ingrained it is in the Bible. Catholics put together the Bible.

I don't agree that Catholics are the ones that put the Bible together. But they also follow so many other writings. I'm not a Protestant either, for they have their own creeds that they follow and ignore Biblical passages. What I am saying is that there are too many groups that devise their own ideas of religion. That is why I'd like to define "religion".

I didn't say that Catholicism wasn't Christianity, but I said that it isn't a PURE Christianity. Most Christian churches aren't either.

For instance, "baptism"....what is it? Biblically it is an immersion, from the Greek baptisto, but Catholics redefined it to be sprinkling or pouring of water. While the Bible give clear distinction that it is a requirement, many groups totally ignore it. Very few churches require immersion as the Bible indicates, which brings the individual into the congregation through the remission of sins and putting on of Christ.

There are many other examples also. So...what defines "religion"?

[L.M. The Third]

Catholics put together the Bible.

May I ask for names, if you have them?

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm sorry, you just don't know your ancient history. There was no forced conversions....

You don't know what you're talking about.

Christ on a cracker.... *sigh*

I'm just walking away. I'll just say these two little words: "Spanish Inquisition."

And I'm walking.

[Theunderground]

Lets cut to the chase. Do religious people give to charity because they are expecting a reward or to please god or to avoid hell? Or all three?
I think religion inadvertantly gets people to do lots of good and lots of evil becuase of fear of disobeying god.
Atheists can be just as moral or more moral,and their motivation is some kind of humanitarian feeling i would imagine.
Many people who are now atheists still have 'christian morality' (as in 'all people deserve some help,one world community,etc.)
so religious people neednt worry quite yet about the results of a godless world.
I feel the atheists help is more from a genuine sense of commnity,whereas with some religious people its from a sense of fear of punishment,which to my mind is somewhat scary.

[Scheherazade]

I am appalled by this display of disrespect and intolerance towards those who do not share your views - especially considering that those involved are long-time members of the Forum, who are familiar with this Forum's philosophy and policies.

This kind of behaviour will never be acceptable on this Forum.

No one, apart from the Moderators, is allowed to distribute justice as they see fit.

If you come across a post that you find disrespectful, report it and it will be taken into consideration by the Moderators.

Those who insist on breaking the Forum rules will lose their privileges to post in the Religious Texts section or get banned from the Forum on temporary or even permanent basis.

I kid you not.

This thread now will be closed.

Fifth> I am sorry that the thread has been hijacked in such manner. Please feel free to start it again if you would like to carry on with the discussion.