Religion in the 21st Century

[Jarmam]

This illustrates my basic point: religion is a commandment to look at the needs of people other than yourself.

Scientology, on the other hand, has self-improvement as its basic premise. I believe that's a petty substantial difference.

Now it gets really hazy. So if I "look at the needs of people other than myself" by simply talking about my religion, doing a service for my deity through that regardless of whether this has any effect... this is still considered to "look after someone"? Even if, by doing this, I might hurt the person in case (like the eskimo)? This makes it sound like you should only "care for others", no matter what that might entail of good or bad things, for your own sake.
What if my religion commands me to torture my slave so that he dies after a few days instead of outright killing him? This is also a religious dogma concerning social behaviour within the group. Is this still better?

I cannot wrap my head around the very, very positive light you shine on whether something describes relations to people other than yourself. Why is this inheritely a better thing? What if its a commandment to lead them, granting me the right to remove those that disagree with either my authority as leader or dogma; rule of law? This is, again, social commandment. That something concerns the structure or government of society does not make it "looking after needs", unless you would argue that Im doing it for their salvation, so theologically I am helping them. Is that the case? Else Im confused. Also Jonestown.

And again, I still dont see how you define religion as to include "self-improvement-religions" like Scientology, but also exclude the concept of mysticism, the New Age spirituality, Martin Luther's theology etc etc etc. I am completely aware that defining religion is like pulling teeth, but this is very selective.

The reason Im riding on this is not that I like Scientology. I despise Scientology and everything about it. But what is being said in this thread is that Scientology is somehow the first and only religious movement to concern the self, which is a millenia-old tradition. Scientology almost becomes a scape-goat to oppose in order to win legitimacy for all other religious conduct. And thats just too easy. And its very apparent through the pick-and-choose of texts here.

Did you know that Scientology has a massive program dedicated to the rehabilitation of criminals, both with the intent to help the criminal and to strenghten social stability? They are also vividly opposed to "drug-the-problem-away", something that can very reasonably be argued is an actual problem in areas of modern medicine. See how easy it is? If I look exclusively at these two facts, I can make Scientology look more favourable than Epicurus. And notice how I described their stated doctrines without looking at how its put in practice at all? Its that easy. You did it with ancient Buddhism. I did it with Scientology.

[HopAlongBunny]

You could look at it as the provision of services.
The welfare state has supplanted religion in the provision of charitable services and health care.
Religion, at least in the wealthier societies is pushed to the margin; no longer a crucial pipeline to material health and welfare.
The new mantra is "self" actualization and fulfillment; the old religions had emphasis in other areas (while not completely excluding this facet)
The deification of the state may supplant religion as the provider of welfare; the corporation as the channel to material well being; the new religion is "self"actualization.

[HoreTore]

Now it gets really hazy. So if I "look at the needs of people other than myself" by simply talking about my religion, doing a service for my deity through that regardless of whether this has any effect... this is still considered to "look after someone"? Even if, by doing this, I might hurt the person in case (like the eskimo)? This makes it sound like you should only "care for others", no matter what that might entail of good or bad things, for your own sake.
What if my religion commands me to torture my slave so that he dies after a few days instead of outright killing him? This is also a religious dogma concerning social behaviour within the group. Is this still better?

I cannot wrap my head around the very, very positive light you shine on whether something describes relations to people other than yourself. Why is this inheritely a better thing? What if its a commandment to lead them, granting me the right to remove those that disagree with either my authority as leader or dogma; rule of law? This is, again, social commandment. That something concerns the structure or government of society does not make it "looking after needs", unless you would argue that Im doing it for their salvation, so theologically I am helping them. Is that the case? Else Im confused. Also Jonestown.

And again, I still dont see how you define religion as to include "self-improvement-religions" like Scientology, but also exclude the concept of mysticism, the New Age spirituality, Martin Luther's theology etc etc etc. I am completely aware that defining religion is like pulling teeth, but this is very selective.

The reason Im riding on this is not that I like Scientology. I despise Scientology and everything about it. But what is being said in this thread is that Scientology is somehow the first and only religious movement to concern the self, which is a millenia-old tradition. Scientology almost becomes a scape-goat to oppose in order to win legitimacy for all other religious conduct. And thats just too easy. And its very apparent through the pick-and-choose of texts here.

Did you know that Scientology has a massive program dedicated to the rehabilitation of criminals, both with the intent to help the criminal and to strenghten social stability? They are also vividly opposed to "drug-the-problem-away", something that can very reasonably be argued is an actual problem in areas of modern medicine. See how easy it is? If I look exclusively at these two facts, I can make Scientology look more favourable than Epicurus. And notice how I described their stated doctrines without looking at how its put in practice at all? Its that easy. You did it with ancient Buddhism. I did it with Scientology.

Weeeeell...

I did make a bunch of assumptions in my OP which I didn't bother to explain, so I guess I should:

Firstly, that humanity, at the very least "the west", has over the last two centuries or so moved from a collectivist to an individualist view of society and the individual.
Secondly, I treat religion from a purely secular stance. I do not concern myself with religious texts and such, simply because I consider religion quite irrelevant. I look only at the social actions taken by religious persons in a (semi)religious context.
Thirdly, I do not concern myself with "what if's" and hypothetical situations. I don't care about a situation where a religion commands someone to kill and torture, unless killing and torturing has defined an actual religion in a community context through its existence(which I don't know any who do).
Lastly, I also ignore sects, cults and so on. I'm talking about "2000 years of christianity in Europe", "religion in classic greece" and such, not "The Jesus Christ Church of Hillbilly Whackjobs". As a collectivist socialist, I coldly disregard the individual

Religion has, throughout human history, been given(or taken) the role of the social welfare worker in society. Broadly speaking, kings and despots have attended to foreign relations, while religion has handled internal matters like law, welfare and social coherence. A good demonstration of this is how almost all the laws in a given religion concerns dealings within that religious group, very few laws deal with people outside the group. Jewish law for Jews, Islamic law for muslims, etc. While people who want to pick a fight with a given religion are quick to point at the rules concerning outsiders, those laws are by far the minority. A religion is first and foremost a set of rules for behaviour within a group.

But what are those rules? Rather than pointing at scripture(which I neither read nor care about) or loonies, I suggest that we should focus on the "common believer", ie. Joe Everyday. If you ask any moderately religious person what their faith is all about, they will usually answer something along the lines of "caring about others". The wording may be different from believer to believer, but the basic message is the same. Religion proscribes peaceful co-existence.

The reason for my OP is statements from Scientologists(mostly former). They point at how they have grown personally, how they themselves have benefited from it. Like a guy who went from being shy to holding lectures, for example(from a BBC documentary on scientology I can't remember the name of atm). The collectivist aspect seems to be missing from Scientology.

I've had a number of conversations with a Sudanese guy on my masters program. He's a former school administrator, and has a good overview of many schools. The reason I've talked to him a lot is that he simply couldn't wrap his head around how Norwegian children are able to behave, as we do not have any religion in schools. In his view, a moral(and we're talking basics here, like no stealing, bullying etc) cannot be achieved without religion, and that's the primary role of religion in his mind. As a south sudanese, he's christian, but he didn't care if the school taught Islam or Christianity: the important thing was that they taught religious values, something he thought the secular state schools lacked.

That, to me, sums up the essence of what religion is in a social context. It's primary role and function is to prevent people from being dicks. It is to remind people to look out for people other than yourself.

As to the point about missionaries, a practice I do not like at all, I'd say it still fits the "look out for others"-summary of religion, even if done on purely theological grounds. The religion has commanded the person to stop sitting on his/her bum and fill the needs of someone they do not know. Now, this need is of course a need created solely by the religion in question and so isn't a real need, but it's still a representation of how religion has made someone care about someone other than him/herself.

Anyway, this thread was created after watching a few interviews with Scientology defectors(who disliked the church, but still liked scientology). When they talked about their religion, they exclusively talked about how it has helped them perform better at various things, which I found to be an odd thing when talking about religion. My subsequent tinkering lead me down the path of an individualist vs. collectivist-idea, and so I created this thread to hear what the rest of you thought

[Jarmam]

Firstly, that humanity, at the very least "the west", has over the last two centuries or so moved from a collectivist to an individualist view of society and the individual.

You could reasonably argue this, yes. This is also reflected in both philosophy (Nietzsche being the most obvious example, but certainly not the only) and theology (the neo-Calvinist idea of monetary indications of predetermined rapture, for instance).

Secondly, I treat religion from a purely secular stance. I do not concern myself with religious texts and such, simply because I consider religion quite irrelevant. I look only at the social actions taken by religious persons in a (semi)religious context.

Referring to the Buddhist text instead of the Buddhist practice blurs this a bit. Im not saying Buddhism is evil, but that the practice of Buddhism, especially the Theravada-tradition, has been focused very heavily on one's "rapture" (if you will), and not that of the people.

Thirdly, I do not concern myself with "what if's" and hypothetical situations. I don't care about a situation where a religion commands someone to kill and torture, unless killing and torturing has defined an actual religion in a community context through its existence(which I don't know any who do).

All three monoteistic Abrahamic religions are littered with commandments to kill and torture properly and rightfully. The most famous example probably being Exodus 21:20-21:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
I admit I put it less poetic in my first summary.
In terms of "hypothetical situations"... well... name any time in history where what we would call "harsh upholding of harsh divine law" hasnt been practiced. Sure, it is sometimes aimed outside the group, but in my eyes thats just an example of how internal social control involves the threat of exclusion and, in some cases, the punishment for apostasy (voluntary or not) that comes with it. Im no Islam expert, but from what Ive gathered it is generally percieved that the biggest "sinner in faith" in Islam is not polytheists, or atheists, but apostates - people that have left the faith (and thus the community). But it can be just as well done inside the group - look at stoning today. Or literal witch hunts in Europe.

Lastly, I also ignore sects, cults and so on. I'm talking about "2000 years of christianity in Europe", "religion in classic greece" and such, not "The Jesus Christ Church of Hillbilly Whackjobs". As a collectivist socialist, I coldly disregard the individual

That does narrow down the field of reference quite a lot, but the former point still stands. This also means that Christianity is excluded up to... I would say Augustine, though that is arguable. But I would say that Scientology doesn't meet the criteria for being a religion, then. Not that I mind ;)

Religion has, throughout human history, been given(or taken) the role of the social welfare worker in society. Broadly speaking, kings and despots have attended to foreign relations, while religion has handled internal matters like law, welfare and social coherence. A good demonstration of this is how almost all the laws in a given religion concerns dealings within that religious group, very few laws deal with people outside the group. Jewish law for Jews, Islamic law for muslims, etc. While people who want to pick a fight with a given religion are quick to point at the rules concerning outsiders, those laws are by far the minority. A religion is first and foremost a set of rules for behaviour within a group.

But what are those rules? Rather than pointing at scripture(which I neither read nor care about) or loonies, I suggest that we should focus on the "common believer", ie. Joe Everyday. If you ask any moderately religious person what their faith is all about, they will usually answer something along the lines of "caring about others". The wording may be different from believer to believer, but the basic message is the same. Religion proscribes peaceful co-existence.

The reason for my OP is statements from Scientologists(mostly former). They point at how they have grown personally, how they themselves have benefited from it. Like a guy who went from being shy to holding lectures, for example(from a BBC documentary on scientology I can't remember the name of atm). The collectivist aspect seems to be missing from Scientology.

This is quite true, the dogma is usually focused on the group itself. I am not so sure how benevolent this has been, though. I would prefer Scientology to 16th century protestantism in Denmark. They probably would have off'd me in some way I would rather not think too much about. I think I would prefer the stake to what was in fashion at that time.

The caring-about-others-thing is not new, but that it is the main focus of the religious practicioner in everyday life is pretty modern. The reason Im riding this is that you said that "throughout history this has been the case". And I disagree. It is common in history to have all sorts of religious practice that have very little to do with caring about others. This includes Christianity. Who paid the tithe to whom? Im not sure your average medieval peasant would agree on the redistribution of resources in society - unless he really feared the Black Pit. Which I can wholly sympathize with.

The collectivist aspect is somewhat downplayed in Scientology compared to general Western "broad" religions, which is quite interesting. Its not that unique, though, as the whole self-empowerment thing has been around for at least 50 years in all shapes and sizes, most found in the vague category of "Western spiritualism". This is not a niche market. But exclusion as a deterrent to inappropriate behaviour works in Scientology as it does in many religious minorities. And when I went into their main office in Europe, which is located in Copenhagen, I was percieved as something really out of place and almost ignored - until I bought a book. Then suddenly everyone were happy to strike a conversation. This, to me, indicates a focus on "members" and "outsiders" that is quite familiar, if excessively extreme in terms of apostates of Scientology if you're referring to the BBC program Im thinking of.

I've had a number of conversations with a Sudanese guy on my masters program. He's a former school administrator, and has a good overview of many schools. The reason I've talked to him a lot is that he simply couldn't wrap his head around how Norwegian children are able to behave, as we do not have any religion in schools. In his view, a moral(and we're talking basics here, like no stealing, bullying etc) cannot be achieved without religion, and that's the primary role of religion in his mind. As a south sudanese, he's christian, but he didn't care if the school taught Islam or Christianity: the important thing was that they taught religious values, something he thought the secular state schools lacked.

That, to me, sums up the essence of what religion is in a social context. It's primary role and function is to prevent people from being dicks. It is to remind people to look out for people other than yourself.

Today, in a lot of regions, yes, Im sure a lot of people would say so. At least prevent them from "being dicks" from the point of view of the current morality. In other words - law.

The point of view he presents is common and fair, but it also holds a few unnerving implications:
Without Christianity (for him) would he act like a complete tosser? If so - where is his sense of morality? And who formulates it? Does he reflect upon it?
If you disagree on a point of view of the dogma, then isn't that just too bad for you? What if I don't want to be circumcised? What if I don't feel like socially excluding people that have done something that my fellow community members deem "unforgivable", like... drinking alcohol or having sex? In some cases my choice is to either go with the flow, or be excluded myself. And social exclusion is a powerful deterrent in itself, you dont need the threat of stoning for apostasy for that.

As to the point about missionaries, a practice I do not like at all, I'd say it still fits the "look out for others"-summary of religion, even if done on purely theological grounds. The religion has commanded the person to stop sitting on his/her bum and fill the needs of someone they do not know. Now, this need is of course a need created solely by the religion in question and so isn't a real need, but it's still a representation of how religion has made someone care about someone other than him/herself.

I don't think we can find common ground here. To me this indicates a focus on me, myself and I. The missionary doesn't act out of "compelment", but because he's ordered to and therefore he does "right" for himself to do so. Is this universally true? No, that would be rubbish to suggest. Im sure its common for people to believe that they are truly helping others by mission. But read some missionary tales, especially those few we have that are written by the recieving end. It is certainly not universally the case either. Again I refer to the Jehova's Witnesses-practice in the West, or when the Mormon church has a small tent in the central city. The actual conversion rate is so low that it's barely detectable. And yet there they are, like clockwork. With God's written command to do missionary duty in mind. At least that's what they told me last time they came around here.
If someone knocks on my door with a blanket and some goo to isolate my useless outer walls in thes harsh winter times to come, I would see this person as caring. If he came with a Bible and a plea to accept his world view, well.. you can make papermachè and insulate decently with the book, I guess.

Anyway, this thread was created after watching a few interviews with Scientology defectors(who disliked the church, but still liked scientology). When they talked about their religion, they exclusively talked about how it has helped them perform better at various things, which I found to be an odd thing when talking about religion. My subsequent tinkering lead me down the path of an individualist vs. collectivist-idea, and so I created this thread to hear what the rest of you thought

To return to the whole reason behind the thread: A focus on what a religion can do for you is quite common in a new religious movement. If you look at the initial characterization of L Ron Hubbard (before you commit to the movement) it is almost entirely surrounding how awesome the guy was at flying planes and riding horses. Look, they say, look what he can do. And I say to you: So can you! You can be a part of what is actually at the centre of the universe. Right here, right now, in this community. Think of all the new Messiahs that appear on a near-daily basis - they pretty much operate with the same strategy. Religious UFO'ism is another good example of this.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on whether or not individualistic focus, as a general concept, is an innately bad thing, and that social regulation is innately positive (I go by your wording when describing the two). They're also not mutually exclusive. You dont have to choose between hippie neo-Marxism or Ayn Rand, there are aspects. There are people with personal problems, who are good, kind folk that just have certain issues with themselves. If mindfulness or Zen-Buddhism or mystic Sufi-Islam can help them there then I hope it does. Religions can deal with social law, but that can be made less relevant with a secular law -if the authority of it is generally accepted. And religions can concern matters of personal/individual development, which you could argue can be undermined via psychology, philosohy (uuh, edgy!), you name it.

Also Scientology sucks. Harassing former members and journalists and having seminars that teach how to effectively provoke people in order to make them look bad if they try to criticize the movement is sickening. Not to mention the use of information shed by people in E-meter-sessions to blackmail said people. You could say that they were informed that the sessions were recorded and could be used by the movement - I find this line of reasoning appalling. Accepting it is like saying "someone is in a weak place - pounce him!" to me. The missionary approach of Scientologists is also among the most aggravating I can think of. Those 200-question-tests are, of course, a trick to make you look bad no matter how you approach them. I am fortunate enough to know someone who knows an ex-member that used to conduct those post-test-interviews, and he told us how it's made to either always have some point from which you can be made out to look like a dick, or that answering "gracefully" to absolutely everything (which is lying, no one likes everything and everyone) is a sign that you're in denial of just how much in the gutter you are. Preying on people in bad spots is not new, but Scientology has found a new way to take it to the next level of asininity.

[Tuuvi]

The reason for my OP is statements from Scientologists(mostly former). They point at how they have grown personally, how they themselves have benefited from it. Like a guy who went from being shy to holding lectures, for example(from a BBC documentary on scientology I can't remember the name of atm). The collectivist aspect seems to be missing from Scientology.

You see a lot of this in the Mormon church. It's common to hear members talk about how the gospel has brought peace into their lives, or how they were blessed for following a certain commandment, or how serving in the church helped them develop new skills or overcome weaknesses.

Interestingly enough, the Mormon church also has a more collectivist mindset, albeit with an individualist twist. There were several attempts in the Church's history to establish collectivist communities and the church played a big role in organizing the settlement of the Western US; Utah territory was essentially a theocracy until the federal government stepped in and asserted its authority.

The Mormon church has always preached the importance of sacrificing one's self to give aid to the needy and contribute to the community, and by doing so the individual is supposed to achieve true happiness and self-actualization. A common mantra in the Mormon church is that the best way to be happy is to forget about yourself and focus on others.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I guess the point is individualism and collectivism are not necessarily opposed. Religions and governments use individual rewards and consequences to encourage positive contribution to the collective. This is, I think, a reflection of our nature as a species. As social animals, our ability to survive depends on the community, which requires our contribution to sustain itself. However our ability to look past ourselves and care about the community as a whole is limited and sometimes falls short. But even this trait is necessary to the proper function of the community, because if the individual's needs were not met by the community than that individual would not be able to contribute to the community, and the community would cease to work. In the end, the collective depends on a certain level of individual selfishness.

[Sigurd]

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I guess the point is individualism and collectivism are not necessarily opposed. Religions and governments use individual rewards and consequences to encourage positive contribution to the collective. This is, I think, a reflection of our nature as a species. As social animals, our ability to survive depends on the community, which requires our contribution to sustain itself. However our ability to look past ourselves and care about the community as a whole is limited and sometimes falls short. But even this trait is necessary to the proper function of the community, because if the individual's needs were not met by the community than that individual would not be able to contribute to the community, and the community would cease to work. In the end, the collective depends on a certain level of individual selfishness.

Rich man (Ruler) asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life (be saved). Answer: Obey commandments and then sell all of your riches and give to the poor.
The community's temporal need is served as the individual is promised great eternal rewards.

[HoreTore]

The Mormon church has always preached the importance of sacrificing one's self to give aid to the needy and contribute to the community, and by doing so the individual is supposed to achieve true happiness and self-actualization. A common mantra in the Mormon church is that the best way to be happy is to forget about yourself and focus on others.

I think this is key. Religion has ensured collectivist responsibility by offering some sort of personal reward(like eternal life). This is how religion has maintained communities IMO.

@Jarman: first off, thanks for an interesting point. I have a couple of comments though.

I have discussed scientology vs old religions in a collectivist vs individualist way, but it was not my intention to portray one as innately good and the other as innately bad. I have my own personal opinion on which is more preferable to me, but that is strictly a subjective view.

The second point is on morality. You object by saying "what about his morality?", to which I have to say that I see it as besides the issue. It doesn't really matter IMO if religion socializes a person to adopt certain morals or whether it simply forces them to act according to such morals. What I'm after is the actions they take within a community, not their personal opinions on it.

[drone]

Both the old-school and modern religions are highly individualistic in nature, it's just how they try to modify the practitioner's behavior that is different. Going to heaven/eternal salvation/72 virgins/OT XV/whatever is a me-me-me focus, delayed gratification in exchange for acting in the manner the church desires. The way practitioner behavior is guided depends on the socio-economic situation during the founding. Hubbard did not have persecution or deprivation to draw from, he had to make stuff up and the community was not dependent on the tenets of CoS to physically survive.

[Kralizec]

Anybody else here who has read Stranger in a strange land?

The church is organized in a complexity of initiatory levels; an outer circle, open to the public; a middle circle of ordinary members who support the church financially; and an inner circle of the "eternally saved" — attractive, highly-sexed men and women, who serve as clergy and recruit new members. The Church owns many politicians and takes violent action against those who oppose it.

...sounds familiar?

[Beskar]

There was an article in the BBC yesterday.

Doing Church without God

Basically takes all the good things from the community aspect provided by a church and a church service, but doesn't make it about God. So a lot of the benefits with none of the brainwashing. It is about the humanism element and not the divine and those of religious backgrounds are free to attend.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There was an article in the BBC yesterday.

Doing Church without God

Basically takes all the good things from the community aspect provided by a church and a church service, but doesn't make it about God. So a lot of the benefits with none of the brainwashing. It is about the humanism element and not the divine and those of religious backgrounds are free to attend.

Meh. The Unitarian Universalists have been doing this for years.

[ajaxfetish]

But when Tom Cruise drives past an accident, he knows that he can help...

I found it funny though that he never actually seems to help, he seems content knowing that he could...

Let's not be too hard on the man: http://www.cracked.com/article_20413...lebrities.html

[Husar]

Let's not be too hard on the man: http://www.cracked.com/article_20413...lebrities.html

Oh that's great, I didn't know that.

Where can I sign up for Scientology?

[Brenus]

"Stranger in a strange land?" R. Heinlein, one of my favourite SF authors....

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think Scientology is a very particular phenomenon and I think that it is difficult to tie it into wider social trends.

Perhaps a better example to serve HoreTore's argument would be prosperity theology, the idea that by being godly and righteous, God will bless you with material wealth. Unlike Scientology, prosperity theology is a more organic development within a traditional religion, and ties into several modern trends as well as individualism, such as materialism etc. This theology is pretty big in the USA, and has been exported very successfully to Latin America and even Africa.

Rich man (Ruler) asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life (be saved). Answer: Obey commandments and then sell all of your riches and give to the poor.
The community's temporal need is served as the individual is promised great eternal rewards.

Except, Jesus' point was that it is impossible to do just that - no human in history has obeyed all the commandments. By Jesus' standard, anger is murder, lust is adultery, and if you break one commandment you break them all.

[HoreTore]

I think Scientology is a very particular phenomenon and I think that it is difficult to tie it into wider social trends.

I am not suggesting it's "a wide trend" though, instead I am suggesting it may be the first of what is to come...

[Papewaio]

I am not suggesting it's "a wide trend" though, instead I am suggesting it may be the first of what is to come...

I don't think it is the first nor is this a new trend. I believe you will be able to find me-me meme philosophies and religions that depend on them going back in time. Problem is a selfish religion is probably going to self destruct much quicker than one that builds by social cohesion and good will.

[Tuuvi]

Except, Jesus' point was that it is impossible to do just that - no human in history has obeyed all the commandments. By Jesus' standard, anger is murder, lust is adultery, and if you break one commandment you break them all.

For me, this is one of the more confusing parts of Christian doctrine. If works can't save us, why should we even try to obey the commandments in the first place?

[Husar]

For me, this is one of the more confusing parts of Christian doctrine. If works can't save us, why should we even try to obey the commandments in the first place?

Because Jesus Christ is your role model as a Christian. You do it out of love for your lord and your savior. Everything you do, you do to show the people God's glory and grace. If you don't, then you're not truly fulfilled by the holy ghost or haven't given Jesus your life to the full extent.

That's sort of what I learned.

[Rhyfelwyr]

For me, this is one of the more confusing parts of Christian doctrine. If works can't save us, why should we even try to obey the commandments in the first place?

The truth and righteousness of the law is something that is written on everybody's hearts - people understand it and know by nature that the commandments are good. "the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law... Which shew the work of the law written in their heart, their conscience also bearing witness... (Romans 2:14-15)".

So it's not about self-interest and earning a place in heaven, it's about doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Of course, even non-Christians know this, it is something imprinted in human nature.

Being a Christian is about admitting you have failed to meet these standards, and you can then bear more good fruit through your works by the regeneration that God works in you.

[Beskar]

Rather offtopic, but I have to ask.

Is Pope Francis a really good pope, or does he have a great PR team?

[Papewaio]

Rather offtopic, but I have to ask.

Is Pope Francis a really good pope, or does he have a great PR team?

Given his lack of monetary spending I assume he wouldn't have hired spin doctors and he is who he is.

[Greyblades]

Rather offtopic, but I have to ask.

Is Pope Francis a really good pope, or does he have a great PR team?

He seems genuine and either way he's the best thing to happen to Catholicism in a long time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Religion in the 21st century will operate as religion has in every other century. It will adapt to whatever positions are both conservative and yet acceptable and act as a future source of strength for current New Atheists that believe that everything they thought when they were young were misguided.

[Beskar]

I really like the guy. I'm still very wary of any man-made institution the size and scope of the Catholic Church, but I don't think they could have picked a better dude. He's like a Christian Dalai Lama. I hope he does his thing for a very long time.

:thumbup:

My thoughts as well.

My question was a little disingenuous I know he doesn't have that much of a PR team and it is all born from his own set of values and beliefs, but it is good that leader of cloth is some one people can aspire to as a role-model to take after. Catholicism needed one for a long time, and so-far-so-good with this Pope.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For me, this is one of the more confusing parts of Christian doctrine. If works can't save us, why should we even try to obey the commandments in the first place?

Because Jesus Christ is your role model as a Christian. You do it out of love for your lord and your savior. Everything you do, you do to show the people God's glory and grace. If you don't, then you're not truly fulfilled by the holy ghost or haven't given Jesus your life to the full extent.

That's sort of what I learned.

On a more basic level - because it's the right thing to do, and if you had to boil Christianity right down it would be "serving God by doing the right thing."

Both parts together, I must stress. Heaven may seem like a carrot but most Christians I know are more likely to worry about going to hell than look forward to Heaven. If anything, Heaven is something that comforts us when someone else passes, rather than a prop to our own behaviour.

Rather offtopic, but I have to ask.

Is Pope Francis a really good pope, or does he have a great PR team?

I think he's a genuinely pious man - but that's also true of the last Pope who designed.

If there's a difference, it's that he places compassion in the centre of his ministry rather than doctrine.