I just like to make a response to this God and Christianity topic. Sorry for those against the Bible and Christianity, I am a Christian as well. Though I see the Bible is valid not because of logic (though it does have a lot meaningful things in it, moral stuff, blah blah blah) but also, one should know that the Bible was not written by one person. It was constituted by many people who are supposedly God-inspired..and through collections of ancient writings (and from scrolls?), the Bible was formed. However, the only thing that i find that one cannot deny is that the bible quotes itself. The New Testament would quote the Old Testament occasionally...and to a human, that is quite odd, knowing that different sections of the Bible were written by different people at different time periods.

In terms of understanding and trying to fit the biblical moral laws and regulation into society and all its controversy with homosexuality, abortion, etc., a Christian can only let the Bible 'speak' for itself. WE live in a vast universe. What percent of knowledge does mankind know of compared to everything that there is to know? Not even a fraction of a percent.

This is only a glimpse of my perspective on Christianity and yah, to argue with our limited, not well-rounded knowledge does not really get anywhere, but only let the evidence and what we know (concrete) stand.

(ok i just rambled)

I too am a Christian, and a Pentecostal one, for those who know what that is. In response to the original question in the thread, I do believe it is the humans who make the practice go awry. I have heard many people dispute their atheism in saying, "If there is a single God, how come all religions are different, across different locations of the world?". What I believe, is that there is a god, a One and Only, and religion is just a practice of support for Him that humans have changed. Each man put their own spin on what they believe is the right way for it to be done, resulting in the many different religions. If I am not politically correct in saying so, the basis of all religion revolves around a very similar principle.

If I am not politically correct in saying so, the basis of all religion revolves around a very similar principle.

So what is your theory for polytheistic religions with multiple Gods? Or non-theistic religions like Buddhism or Shinto?

In fact, the entire practice of monotheism is mostly western. The majority of eastern religions are entirely different.

I think that religions represent mankind's attempts for devising methods of obtaining ultimate knowledge. While religions try to provide some answers to questions that are more philosophical than scientific like "why is there suffering?" and "why do we exist?", in the past they also included stories to explain many things in the physical world that at the time were unknowable - answers to questions like "why does it rain?", "why does the ground shake?", "why do we have seasons?", etc. I think that the reason secular philosophy and science are gradually replacing religion entirely in this quest for ultimate knowledge is that both are capable of evolving over time and both try not to encroach on their respective turfs (i.e. the metaphysical vs. physical realms), while religions have historically not been able to evolve and have certainly encroached on the physical realm. Religions often establish themselves as a source of absolute truth, making it nearly impossible to evolve. Declaring absolute truth where none actually exists eventually leads to conflict as mankind's knowledge increases over time. There seems to be a gradual movement toward the acceptance that incrementally more useful untruths (obtained through secular philosophy and science) have greater utility than absolute truths (obtained through religion).

I'm very interested in this conversation, except I feel extremely uneducated about all of the philosophies so please be gentle on me to start with ;) I am a christian and I do believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christs sacrifice which is biblically stated as a foundational truth of christianity, even going as far to find that in the new testament they leave behind the covenant which moses and his people knew of. I have read through the bible 4 times now from front to back and though I understand the view people hold of its so called "outdated" laws, I can truly say the more I study this amazing book the more I am struck by Gods view of us. I must admit, even for me at times I read something and I wonder at how God could ask us to follow certain commands, such as forgiving.... in the case of rape or murder how could someone, either the victim or the near relatives forgive and yet God did, he forgave them all. I have begun to really notice the pain which this world is filled with and the more I think of the 12 commandments the more I can understand why God gave them, he knows our hearts and how we are damaged by lying, stealing, killing etc. I will willingly hear and attempt to answer any of your questions regarding christianity... I can only promise to try to answer them, not that I will know every answer.

I have a hard time believing in a God or deity simply for the reasons that Adam said: religions can't evolve. A lot of times truths are sacrificed and ignored for what has been previously taught. I find the aspect of religion extremely ignorant to a lot of concepts. But, in recent years, religious figure heads are doing a great job of trying to keep up with scientific and moral advancements of our culture. Example: homosexuality (some priests/ministers are beginning to accept homosexuality in the church). That being said, I don't and will never frown upon someone who is religious. I was religious once upon a time, and then I found it wasn't for me. I've researched quite a few different religions and have made up my mind on what I do and don't believe in. For me, a huge negative part of religion is the conversion aspect. I've never gotten into people converting other people to their religions - this has caused a lot of turmoil (and wars) over the years and I have a hard time agreeing with anything that is so costly in terms of human life and human rights. I also find the idea of heaven and hell very selfish. The fact that people are out there doing good deeds just so that their God will smile upon them and let them through the golden gates seems really selfish to me. You should be doing good deeds from the kindness of your heart, not because you are scared to burn for eternity. (Not that all religion does this, but some.)
All that being said, I still manage to retain the belief that we don't simply stop being after we die. Of course, our body dies, and I'm certain we won't feel or be able to acknowledge what happens to our "aura/energy/soul" when we die, but I've always believed that something happens to our energy when we die.

I definitely agree with Alaina in support of religion being a "metaphorical blanket." It's often used as a means of escaping reality, by using information from thousands of years ago to determine the source of fierce questions such as where did we come from, why, and what is our purpose?

Why is uncertainty frowned upon? Are humans instinctively driven towards finding an answer, or can we be content with the knowledge of never discovering an absolute truth?

I don't consider myself to have a religion per say, just an outlook on life. I find structured religion to be too closed minded and at the same time frustratingly subjective. I believe that over time different cultures created deities as a means of explanation for unwarranted deaths, disasters and ill fate;to explain the phenomena of the earth and all it entails without the technology to probe deeper. I believe that the stories eased fear because they created a semblance of understanding. Now, these stories have become truth for many people and are recognized as part of many people's identity. However, with the technology available to us to begin our search for a scientific rationale behind outcomes a challenge has been made to the validity of the stories which have existed for so long and have explained so much in their own ways. I think it to be a very healthy idea to find a balance between the now and the then. Ideas which were suggestive and taboo then have become accepted and proven true now. I think it's important to understand the limits due to perspective and time when putting faith into older documents but do not feel anyone is in the wrong in doing so. I simply think having a system of belief and religion doesn't have to restrict someone's views or prevent them from believing in other ideas. Due to the conflict surrounding the Bible and many liberal views I have found it easier to simply believe in love. Not as a tangible thing but as a pinnacle to which all
forgivable deeds can be attributed. When acting without love for person, place or thing, there is no defensible motive. Love is the bane and the purpose for life.

I'd like to take a shot at this topic. I have not studied religion, only dabbled in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history and I was brought up as a Protestant. Bear with me, this all ties in.
I recently argued for a course paper that religions denote particular philosophies of life. Under the premise that philosophy is the study of understanding, and life represents all that it is to exist (to be sentient, self-aware, posses a physical form etc). Religions are objective understandings of existence. Even though many religions are described and understood through allegory, that allegory is a consistent representation of a largely accepted belief, which can be considered objective by those that believe in it. The truly devout believe in the fact of religion, even though those of other religions, or those without religion, argue that they are subjective, which, relative to them, is also true. I will state now that there is no ultimate truth. The scientific process provides us with the most effective means of rationalizing what is and developing a comprehensive and unbiased understanding of what ever it may be; from molecular structure, to mass psychology, however it is limited by our ability to make observations. There is always something more complex that makes up the whole. Religion is an ethical and moral attempt at understanding and influencing human behavior, which, today, we study through philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history.

To me, religion is typically an understanding of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history explained through allegory to provide an objective (within that religion) base upon which mankind can progress. However, I argue that a more comprehensive, unbiased, philosophy of life can be developed by avoiding allegory and emphasizing the unanimous, albeit secular, objective qualities in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history that are key to an effective philosophy of life. From this foundation, a more subjective (on the individual level) understanding of life may provide the moral, ethical, and directional relief that is so appealing of an organized religion. When humans focus on the levels that we are similar to one another in, we are naturally adverse to conflict, and inclined to compassionate and harmonious behavior. Lacking this understanding is what I see to be the primary flaw of organized religion. Many religious followers accept this notion and coexist quite harmoniously with people of other religions, however, there are many who do not and this causes the adversity that plagues our social progress.

I am going to stop now until someone bites on this reply. Thank you for reading.

I'm not a fan of religion. I don't want to offend anyone, but I feel that religion by the world's standards is kind of an archaic set of rules that keeps people in bondage to them. Now for me to say this may surprise you, as I am a born-again Christian, a child of God, but when I look around at different "religions" specifically in "Christianity," this happens to be an accurate definition of what I mostly see.

The real Biblical definition of religion is so far apart from our definition of religion today. The Bible actually says in James 1:27, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction..." This is what it is supposed to be, not a set of rules that weigh people down, where did we ever get that idea in the first place? If you have a RELATIONSHIP with God, you are supposed to be FREE. John 8:36, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." Jesus never wanted a restricting religious hierarchy.

Have you ever read the Gospels in the Bible? The people Jesus was hardest on and the people that He called fools were the religious leaders of the day.