I was on a board that primarily deals with NDE's.

However, someone introduced 'Spiritism' as something that was never meant to replace religion but to 'supplement' it and ties in with many NDEs. He mentioned some of the key beliefs such as the Bible is mostly 'allegories' and never meant to be taken literally and reincarnation is a true doctrine.

I posted I had a problem with accepting 'religions' that teach 'false doctrines', for example teach other than 'reincarnation' and teachings that bible stories are 'completely true'.

I got a response from a 'part-time pastor or minister'. He said: I'd compare a truth seeker such as myself to a prospector for diamonds. What prospector would throw away an ugly imperfect rough diamond because in his heart only the perfect stone could give true fulfillment of his dreams? I think any prospector would be glad just because he recognizes a mere spark of the beauty he desires so badly. If not, he must be a very depressed and quite a poor prospector indeed. Another, NDE person said that 'God' would not have a problem with whatever a person believes (short of criminal activity).

Do any here that believe in a 'religion' accept that it 'teaches false doctrine' but because it has some 'good things' to offer it's members, it is ok?

Do many 'Christian churches/pastors/ministers' teach that their church teachings are not all accurate but it's all ok?

Any thoughts on this?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2017 11:13PM by spiritist.

I think the concept that because someone/thing does some good makes it OK is bunk.

The Nazis did some good in that they ran soup kitchens for the poor, did that make the Nazis OK?

Mussolini made the trains run on time, did that make the Italian Fascist OK?

Most mainstream Christians are not Bible literalists. It is not unusual for Christians on the moderate-to-liberal end of the spectrum to take a cafeteria approach to their faith's doctrines and policies.

For instance, in the Catholic church in which I was raised, it was perfectly okay to disagree with one of the Pope's pronouncements, or with a particular doctrine, or policy. The church does not function as the thought police. It can't even perfectly control its own priests and nuns, some of whom who have a very independent streak.

This is often a very difficult concept for exmos, who have been raised in a very rigid, controlling church, that people can and do approach religion and religious participation in different ways.

In Japan, there is fluidity even between religions. A person might observe the Shinto holidays, marry in a Christian church, and eventually have a Buddhist funeral.

The idea of being justified seems to be widespread. Justified to whom? Mormons can do whatever they want if sock puppet God (controlled by an 80-year-old hand) justifies it, no matter how much it sucks. If you drop a bowling ball on your foot, justification won't change the physical consequences. It will only help you not feel so bad about being stupid. You can pretend the ball was destined to land on your foot, and thank goodness you got that out of the way.

Religion is a crutch that people use to beat themselves over the head with.

Well, I'm of the opinion now (it has been a sort of evolving feeling) that no religion has any intrinsic value, but some highly localized churches do try to do good within the community. To do good, to be moral and ethical, has absolutely nothing to do with religion, belief in god/a god, Jebus, or anything.

Spiritualism affects most people to a certain extent (although I would rule out people who have Asperger's as being able to perceive spiritual thoughts; I don't really know that, but am close to a couple of people who have Asperger's, and the last thing they comprehend is anything spiritual). Yet spiritualism, while natural and uplifting, is unnecessary. And spiritualism, like ethical behavior, also appears to have no intrinsic relation to religion, either.

Long answer to a short question. But no, I don't think that my religion or any religion with which I have been associated, has intrinsic value or "does good, anyway." There are no souls to be saved, no authority to be had. If a religion "does good," it is quite by chance.

It's the" Mussolini made the trains run on time" argument.

Any "good" that religion does is ultimately paid for by taxpayers.

If you have to brag about your good to justify your bad you have just admitted what you are.

Mormonism is a polished turd that stinks anyway, though if you have enough plastic wrap, it makes a passable paperweight.

"Passable" is perhaps not the best adjective. Or maybe it is. :)

Yeah, but anything is "passable" if you ingest enough laxative.

Perfect.

Most people I know who affiliate with a religion do it out of family tradition and I don't mean mostly Mormons. My catholic and methodist friends are basically in the same boat. My catholic and protestant friends have very liberal belief systems personally but are attached to their faith of origin because it is familiar to them and they have long term relationships within their congregations. I see less and less consideration of doctrine. Even the ministers have gotten to the point of accepting almost any belief as long as it doesn't go too contrary to what they are willing to condone. Some even go so far as to sound almost Unitarian in their sermons. By that I mean that they only ask their members to believe in god and in Jesus but how they believe they don't really care. Just come to church to commune together, give thanks, and donate to hold the church together.

Many protestant churches are being held together by African immigrants and Asians. Their naive faith in god is similar to that of past generations of Americans. I doubt that will last much more than one generation as their children are now full fledged Americans who don't have the same upbringing as their parents.

My religion is MORmONISM.

MORmONISM SUCKS.

That pretty well explains why I no longer ascribe to religion.