I agree with that.  It is kind of like a license to practice medicine (or law).  You first have to get the license by taking the test and meeting the prerequisites.  After that, you receive the benefits of having the license so long as you don't abuse your privileged status, in which case you can be disbarred.

Similarly, baptism is making the exchange of promises to meet the prerequisites to come into Christ's fold.  From there, you receive the benefits of Christ's atonment so long as you continue on that path and don't abuse it (by becoming an unrepentent sinner, etc.).

In any case, those kinds of "rites" and "ordinances" that make you part of a group and bestow upon you special privileges are one reason people might join a religion.

I feel like I covered those special privileges. The push is a relationship with God. You'd agree to the covenant even if God didn't promise anything nice if it's founded on a positive relationship.

The pull is those special privileges; the promise of heaven, and perhaps some nice things on Earth.

Is that correct?

I just think relationship with God and exchange of covenants are two completely separate things -- both important, but both separate.

In other words, you can have the greatest relationship with God in the world, but if you don't accept the saving ordinances (baptism or what have you), you still can't be saved (or enjoy the promise/privilege of the covenant exchange).  It's like having a great understanding of money but never investing it.

But again, a relationship is a motivation. A covenant is not a motivation. You don't say "this religion has the most covenants, we should go with it!"

No, that's not really my point.  My point is that if people are trying to decide whether to join a religion or not join it, the fact that it professes to be able to conduct saving ordinances is a motivation to join it (versus not getting the saving ordinances by not joining it).  So the real motivation here is salvation (and the benefits received from God covenanting with you through the ordinances), not necessarily covenants made by individuals.

So for example, if the Catholics teach you that you go to hell if not baptized, that is a motivation to get baptized, regardless of your relationship with God.

That's an interesting perspective Heath.  Can't say that I can relate to that at all, but I do find it interesting that some people would use that as motivation.

I can totally see it, but I think that's partially because of my upbringing.

Jesus said to Peter that he would be rock upon which the Church is built, which is taken as creating the original ordinations. Peter uses this authorization to ordain the other apostles, who ordained their own people and so on, all the way down. So if you're a Catholic, you know your priest has a direct connection all the way back to Jesus. Part of that ordination is conferring the power to represent Jesus and conduct his sacraments on Earth. Just like I'm not authorized to forgive you your sins on behalf of Jesus, you're not going to let any Joe Blow say he's speaking for God and you should listen.

Most branches of Protestantism don't share that line of ordinations (Luther was a priest, but not a bishop, so by the rules, he can't ordain other priests or bishops).

Of course, if you were raised Protestant, you were probably never introduced to this as a major concept, or you were introduced to a contrary argument as to why your church is right. I'm not familiar with any church that says "here's what we believe, and we believe we're probably wrong".

But Heath is totally right. Even Doulos believes it, even if he doesn't think so. If Doulos is looking for a Church to join that will bring him closer to God and otherwise bring him rewards, he's probably going to look for the guy dressed like a priest, in a church building, who comes off as someone as an authority; he's not going to follow the crazy guy preaching on the street corner to anyone who will listen. Why? Because the former gives indications that he is a serious professional who knows what he's doing and can deliver on promises. The latter gives the impression of being a crazy hobo.

The irony being, of course, that Jesus looked much more like the crazy hobo than the serious professional.  People who had the same "trust the guy with the good costume" view back in Jesus' time wouldn't have taken Jesus seriously (or would have, but in the way led to him being crucified).

I have to agree with Tycho here. Choosing a religion because its administrators look professional and respectable doesn't seem a reliable way to get to God. Personality is important, but that should be done by looking at the character of the founder rather than its current representatives.

The examples of people chosen by God (inside and outside of Christianity) are mostly people of humble origins, not established leaders. These people's lives and teachings can be evaluated to see if they are consistent with what our conscience tells us.

And this is why I could never be, for instance, an Anglican.

Perhaps this is the best place for this one, since it's a question of epistemology.

This is something I've run across more in discussions of history than of religion, but it's perhaps even more prevalent in religion. I don't bring this up to say who's "right" and who's "wrong", but so that people can better understand those they disagree with.

I'll define conservatism (small-c intentional) as being cautious with respect to change. We may not understand the reasons behind our current structures, but they may have evolved into these forms because they function, and changing them may break something we don't fully understand.

The opposite of conservatism isn't liberalism, but progressivism. Progessivism believes in the "march of history", the betterment of society. It compares the new to the old on a blank slate and usually finds the old wanting, so discards it.

In history, conservatism is dominant. Established truths have primacy, and new ideas have to demolish old ones before they are accepted. It's even more extreme than Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", because outdated ideas often outlive even the lifetimes of historians who hold them. Some progressives will complain about the unfairness of this, asking that their ideas get a "fair and neutral hearing" against old ideas (i.e. on a progressive blank slate). I personally, progressively lament the fact that the need for a low chronology of the bronze age was demonstrated over twenty years ago, but is still rejected by everyone in the mainstream.

In religious discussions, this usually gets expressed as the "burden of proof", a loaded phrase that I'm sure will harden people's views about what I'm saying here, but I'll use it anyway. I hope people can look outside themselves for a bit to consider both sides. A progressive may want to view any claim, such as "God exists" or "God does not exist" on a blank slate versus the null hypothesis, and place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. (Some go even further and distinguish between these two claims, saying one has a burden of proof and the other does not).

The conservative, on the other hand, places the burden of proof on someone who wants to change what's established, which usually means Christianity in the context of western religious discussions. To such a conservative, atomic beliefs regarding God, Scripture, and Christianity are held until proven false, and replaced with modified beliefs as necessary. (Some go even farther than conservatism, holding beliefs that have been proven false. They're often referred to as reactionaries or denialists, but I want to keep that distinct from conservatives for now.)

I'll end here by saying that neither side is right or wrong. We view things in different ways, and I know that personally I have a conservative epistemology on some things, and a progressive epistemology on others. If you examine your own views, you may find the same.

----

On a side note, I really don't care for it when people try to break a post into single lines and reply to each with a one-line response. Doing so doesn't lead to anyone understanding the responder's viewpoint because it isn't expressed at length, and doesn't lead to comprehensible conversations as people chase each other down a rabbit hole that leads to semantics. I'll ask that people respond at length to this with their own counter-theses, trying to clearly spell out their own views. I tired long ago of responding to posts full of single lines.

I don't know that I agree with that entirely.  Both of your groups want the betterment of society, they just disagree as to how best to go about it.  Progressives see betterment in an imagined future, conservatives want a return to a better imaginary past.  Based on that, both sides makes assumptions on what they believe, and they push the burden of proof onto anyone whose opinion differs.

Personally, I prefer to take the postmodernist approach: every idea needs to go through a cycle of deconstruction and reconstruction.  By examining, challenging, and rebuilding old concepts, they evolve or become stronger.  But, for that to happen, you have to enter the experiment with an open mind, deconstruct ideas honestly, and view them as what they really are-- you need to see the good and bad in every opinion.

Joining the discusion starting at the top of the page, I'd like to make a comment about certainty.  I feel the main thing we need to know about certainty. Is that as members of the Body of Christ, if we or others, ask God for forgiveness of the wrongs done by us unknowing, if we truly mean the request, we will be forgiven. Even though in that case we have no clue what to change.

The certainty of religion is not and never has been the certainty of Truth, because we are imperfect creatures each of us are no more able to look on the face of perfect truth then we are the face of God, but is based on the certainty of Faith.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:44, Wed 15 Apr 2015.

In reply to hakootoko (msg # 177):

I'd tend to agree with what you've said in this post, it seems a fair assessment as far as it goes.

In reply to C-h Freese (msg # 179):

I agree with this somewhat.  There are three basic reasons behind religion:  (1) to provide principles of behavior to lead one to happiness and back to God; (2) to provide links to God (like prayer) and the related rites and rituals established by God to demonstrate one's faith and one's willingness to sacrifice and follow God; and (3) to be separated by God to develop faith and overcome trials.

In reply to Heath (msg # 181):

I would disagree with that. Those may be the three spiritual reasons, but there are a lot of other 'reasons' for religion beyond that; tradition, group cohesion, motivating people towards a particular behavior, and yes, search for 'Truth'. Not saying these are all GOOD reasons, but they are all definitely reasons.

I am not quiet sure that is a disagreement more looking at the same thing on a different level.  A one point it was believed the four elements of Matter were bound together by a fifth that made creation possible, we would translate that to spirit now days.

Plus the idea of the search for Truth, and search for God, being like calculus limits, unreachable in a finite system.  Doesn't mean that attempting it is a waste of time, I personally believe God what ever name we give him, her, or them, is always found beyond the limits of the known.

eerrrrr.. Sorry Heath for editing a post after you replied to it! When I got to this thread the first thing I saw was my post. And realize I hadn't come back to edit after a smartphone post.  I didn't even realize your reply was two me,I hope I didn't change what you took the meaning to be.

In reply to katisara (msg # 182):

I was referring to the three fundamental or basic reasons underlying religion.  As to each person's motivating factor, or other collateral issues like group cohesion, they apply on a case by case basis.

I think you are referring more to organized religion; I am referring to the existence of religion...period.

EDIT: In other words, if you don't have the three factors I mentioned, you won't have "tradition, group cohesion, motivating people towards a particular behavior, and yes, search for 'Truth'."  These all flow out of those three basic reasons.  You don't have "tradition" if you don't first have the religion.  You don't have motivations to join if you don't first have religion.  And the quest for truth is individual motivation that can splinter into various searches depending on the individual, so the search for "religious" truth also builds on those three basic building blocks.  The "search for truth" is a motivating factor for many things (philosophy, science, etc.) that are separate from religion, so the existence of those three basic building blocks are what drive someone seeking truth in the direction of religion (instead of, say, science or philosophy).
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:15, Wed 15 Apr 2015.

What if one of your fundamental beliefs is one of superficiality? You have a core belief of "clothes make the man?" Why would this not be a valid way of addressing what religion to join?

I keep thinking on this. Religion to me is comprised of two elements: spiritual and social. While I would think that most would address the spiritual first, I've known plenty to start attending a church based entirely on their friends or family's presence within that faith and then converted to it. I don't think that either approach is wrong.

I also think Heath's answer pre-supposes we're talking about a religion which he believes to be correct. Heath, do you, for instance, feel that your three rules apply to Satanism? To Voodou? To Hinduism?

Heath's three reasons all presuppose belief in God, because they all provide God as a reference point. So belief is logically prior to all of them. Yet not all religions are monotheistic, or even theistic.

I think people can have "tradition, group cohesion, motivating people towards a particular behavior, and yes, search for 'Truth'" without monotheism, and without religion at all.

But I'm not sure what Heath is saying in his brief posts. Are these three about the origin of religion, or the reasons that an individual finds religion?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:14, Thu 16 Apr 2015.

If I lack certainty of the Truth of God's existence, then I must also lack certainty that I will be forgiven by him. I also can't have certain Faith in a being unless I am certain of his existence.

I think a lack of certainty is an admirable trait. I try to begin with humility. Mankind is the not the greatest thing in the universe. Our ignorance is far larger than our knowledge, and our knowledge will only grow incrementally during my lifetime. Even our knowledge is not Truth, but a weak approximation of it. Faced with an uncertainty that I don't expect to be resolved in my lifetime, such as "Does God exist, or not exist?", I try to understand until I believe ("belief: an emotional commitment to a proposition or its opposite when the evidence for each is inconclusive") one or the other. I recognize that this belief is not Truth, and not even knowledge, but is the best I can do with what I've got. Maintaining this uncertainly, I can change my beliefs over time as more evidence emerges.

Yeah, I'm going to completely disagree.

The basic principle of religion is to help make sense of the universe around us.  You don't need principles of behavior (they're common, but ultimately not required), you don't need rituals (Jesus even disdained many prayer rituals of his day, and instead gave a simpler method) and you certainly don't need a "link to god", especially if you don't believe in a singular deity.

No, all you need for a religion is a need to understand, and a good metaphor to place it in.  That gives you understanding, and comfort, and strength.

You guys are putting words in my mouth.  I presupposed the existence of a supreme being in my statements because we are talking about "religion."  If you want to talk about philosophies, that is something entirely different.  I made general statements which I think are true for most religious thinking.  Are there exceptions?  Maybe.

I'm not sure if you are going out of your way to find an exception to what I said to try to prove me wrong, or if the message of what I am saying is being lost amidst rhetoric.

I could say the sky is blue, and you could prove me wrong on occasion.  It may be reddish at dusk, covered with dark clouds at times, etc.  But that loses the point I'm making and, IMHO, belittles the entire discussion.

I think we're all legitimately confused by what you're saying. I'm going to paraphrase poorly, so apologies.

GMC seems to think you're trying to say "these are the root drives that create religion", or possibly "this is the defining thing that establishes a religion".

hakootoko says explicitly he doesn't know what you're saying, and asked for clarification.

I thought you were putting forward a sociological statement. "People may join a religion for one of these reasons." TheMonk seems to agree.

I think all of us agree you're excluding all polytheistic and nontheistic religions, or possibly all non-Christian religions. But I don't know if that's what you intended.

I guess my point is, some clarification would be appreciated. Between four people, we have at least three interpretations of what you said.