On True Religion

The preachers and pastors wonder why is it so hard to get the men to come out to church and why religious gatherings tend so often to be merely female gatherings. They have yet to recognize what appeals to men. They have yet to accept that in order for a religion to appeal generally to real men it must require the exertion of a professional athletic event, produce the intensity of sexual union, yield the ecstatic unity and comradery of a music concert, and promise the fame and public acknowledgment of the mass media.

Why does common, boring religion fail? Just ask yourself how hard it is to go to church and sit in the pews. It is not hard. Make religion hard on men. Make a religion that requires them to sacrifice all things and pushes them to edge of sanity and real men will flock to your standard. They will die for religion when previously they thought it was all a waste. This is why we have failed to understand the Muslims who do understand what I am saying. We are afraid to understand this. Consequently, we and our Christian nation have no true religion.

And where is the religion that produces the intensity of sexual union? It can only be a religion that makes sexual union or its equivalent part of the religion. But, honestly, does sex have an equal? We ought to wonder. But the religion that produces sexual intensity cannot be the modern Christianity that cannot explain sex, that relegates it as a mere human, fallen, and earthly thing. Sexual intimacy can be divine. Indeed, true religion will make it cosmically valuable bringing us closer to origins of our human race and even the gods. Consequently, true religion will embrace the need to treat sexual union with the reverence and exaltation it merits. These real-universe spiritualists will sanctify and celebrate the union. They will have no trouble appealing to the fundamental nature of real men the world over.

What do we find at a great music concert? When we stand before the artist on stage we find ourselves one in movement and spirit. The crowd pulses and swells to a single rhythm. A single person can be for a moment lifted up as a surfer on the waves of humanity supported by the strength of thousands. Why? No one knows why or even says why. But it is obvious that they have found something, some spirit of unity that they could not find at home, at work, or, above all, at church, the very place it should have been. Of course, the churches will never be able to duplicate this phenomenon until they actually try. They have called all this the “devil,” the have put for darkness the very liberating light. True, “devils” may be twisting the essence of the music concert, but the cosmic value and unifying potency is still there for the churches and it is still untapped. If you achieved this ecstasy in your religious gatherings you would be surprised what you could invite men to accomplish.

And who loves to do the good that will never be known? Christians think this is at the heart of Christianity, but honestly they only do good in private because they believe they still have the audience of the universe. They do good with the conviction that God, himself, and the hosts of heaven are watching. What could be more arrogant, more fame-seeking, more beggarly for acknowledgement? And yet I am not being entirely critical. What I am criticizing is this fake and fraudulent Christian notion that some how the “true” Christians have overcome the need to be acknowledged for their good deeds. “But your Father in heaven seeth in private.” Not only do they crave an audience they have made the Master of the universe their audience. It is pure hypocrisy for them to say they do not practice a religion that promises fame and public acknowledgment for that is precisely why there will be a final judgment where the good and faithful are publicly exalted in the eyes of the hosts of heaven and earth making them infinitely famous through the Media of the Most High. What am I suggesting? True religion will be honest about this need and craving for individual recognition. It will make the righteous famous in the here and now. It will make a heaven on earth. It will preach a doctrine that allows God to exalt men on earth while still alive and even in the prime of life and youth. It will allow God and his followers to publish the greatness of religiousity to the ends of the earth. Far from keeping good deeds private, when we see a good-doer we true religionists will lift him (or her) up on our shoulders, tell his story on the news and movies, and put his face on billboards.

This is what James was really saying, that true religion begs for overcoming all odds and this is what we find faces the lowest stratus of society: the widows and the fatherless. We could be creating spiritual heroes of men and women who overcome the dragons and demons that face those disadvantaged people in the world. We could create a society that publishes good deeds to high heavens. We could exalt one another. We could make reality shows of such heroes. We could.

Was there ever such a religion? Has it ever existed? Perhaps, it has in ancient America. At least it is true that there we find the ancient ancestor of the game that would be what is called “Soccer” today. The sacred ball game was used to determine the fate of humans and the mind of the gods. We find a religion that required the utmost sacrifice we have to offer: human. Do we find music? Do we find concert? Do we find sexual intimacy as religion? Do we find ancient mass media in the stone etchings covering the temples? If our anthropologists and archeologists do not eventually find all these among the Maya and Aztec I will be astonished and publicly call myself a fool. So, yes, I believe that at least once the human race tried to achieve this true religion. That does not mean they succeeded. There are a thousand “devils” that could have tripped them up and ensnared their hopes. But if our Christians will just read their own texts, they will see that along side all the apocalyptic prophecies of destruction and desolation there is a parallel set promising the some kind of restoration of the righteous to result in gatherings and rebuilding cities. There is, in truth, a set of prophecies dedicated to humanity’s victory on earth, not merely in heaven. So, at least there is a Biblical basis for the hope of true religion as an earthly one in our own archives, though I do not know that Jesus would endorse all that I have said.

Of course, all that I have said applies to women. But I was speaking to my brothers and I believe that women are still attracted to real men. Fill a church with real men and women, who are already attracted to religious society, will show up to your events. It is men who need more to be brought out of their dark caverns of soul. They have yet to find a religion which encourages and invites them to be themselves, their complete, whole, unedited selves.

ok for starters I’m gonna start with a, religion is an opiate for the masses, and not needed, secondly we already have religions based on sexual power, mormonism and islam in both of those religions (ironically?) the women have NO power.

Does religion need to move men?

no.

should current religions incorporate sex and sports and competition?

no.

Nothing you said there would make a better religion. honestly.

Straw men.

Why not?

More straw men. Dogmatic. And again, even if this was my position accurately restated, why not?

Do you even have the slightest idea of what it means to be a faithful church-goer or adherent to a contemporary religion?

Sorry I don’t build flammable threads move on cybersage.

(there’s plenty of proof out there, google up islam women oppression / mormon women oppression)

Why not?
[/quote]
because religion isn’t needed by men or women, it’s a system of control.

I saw a brilliant quote that I forgot to bookmark, basically that religion has you waste this life on the promise of an afterlife, controlling you with the ever present “do as we say not as we do”. Of course, you do they engrain the fear of god into you, you obey “god’s” law on the promise that you’ll get into heaven, eventually you even begin to “feel” god’s presence. It’s all a trick of your mind, and it’s ALL mind control.

more reasons religions isn’t needed? look at the American Humanist Society, they do moral and good things without the fear of god.

Look at life value, when we know there is no afterlife, it makes the value of this life increase exponentially.

More straw men. Dogmatic. And again, even if this was my position accurately restated, why not?
[/quote]
What you’d have then is a bunch of people competing for an invisible gods’ attention either through sexual power plays or athletic power plays, either way it’s not a good thing. (I’m not going to go any further into it than that, because honestly YOU are so set in your ways that you are obstinately blinded by tunnel vision faith.)

Do you even have the slightest idea of what it means to be a faithful church-goer or adherent to a contemporary religion?
[/quote]

I’m going to guess that you think no?

But in all honesty I was probably more of a crass christian than you. well maybe not that crass. But pretty close.

I just see religion as more valuable than that.
I understand something of the Nietzschean argument on the Eternal Round. It is interesting, but I don’t see it as increasing the value of life exponentially. I see it as a mind exercise for valuing life.

I don’t know where you got this idea. You are reading things into my view that are not there.
You really cannot claim to be going into a discussion of my view, because you haven’t slightly attempted to understand it.

I just asked a question. I actually never said I was Christian, by the way. I have spoken of religion in generic terms. We could have talked about Islam or Hinduism.

The title of this thread is an oxymoron. True religion? Heh, please.

The point is that if there were a true religion is would need to pass certain fundamental tests.

I’m not disagreeing with you outright. I think churches are tending more towards acknowledging precisely the criteria I have set out because churches must recognize the importance of accommodating and celebrating what it means to be human.

Traditionally, the Christian churches have criticized and cursed our earthly existence.

<< (rewind to beginning)

yea I would agree with that and go a step further.

christianity calls itself an inclusive religion because it doesn’t matter what culture you are in god will save you, but the fact of the matter is they are exclusive just like every other religion. In order to be saved from sin you have to submit to christ. What makes their exclusive access to god any more correct than any other religion?

In that sense what would make any replacement religion a “true religion” any religion that considers itself the “true religion” has just created another exclusionary religion.

What you have said is very important because it begins to get to the heart of the issue of the nature of religion.
What is religion? I am asking you.
How would you define “religion”?

Below is the entry for “religion” taken from Merriam-Webster Online. I find it very revealing and a good starting point.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back – more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

i think skythe is talking about the pre-vatican2 doctrine of damning all non-jesus-believers, whether they heard of him or not, to limbo. i guess its possible that there are people who would say that if you reject jesus after he has been proposed to you then you are in trouble, but im pretty sure that if theres an isolated island man somewhere, hes not required to beleive in jesus.

what people ARE required to beleive, according to any christian, is that your supposed to roughly follow the golden rule, ie not disgustingly violate it.

theres a big difference there i dont talk about enough. its hard to say to what extent you should do good deeds, but if you violate the golden rule on purpose, maliciously, then i think all religions will condemn you in whatever way they do. thats the true religion: “dont hurt people on purpose for no reason”. thats what christians will say all are required to believe.

I don’t believe so. I think Scythekain is saying that each and every religion creates a system whereby all others are excluded and he sees this as a categorical error common to religion generally speaking.
We’ll have to see what he/she says. This is why how Scythekain defines “religion” will be crucial to understanding his/her criticism of it.

Granted.

Yes, though it seems okay if people are hurt if there is a good reason (i.e. religious persecution). Pain and suffering seem necessary to Christianity.

Thank you for posting, Future Man.

his,

cybersage I think you were close to my intended statement meaning.

Basically every religion, belief in god creates an exclusionary system. Christianity claims we are all sinning and in need of salvation, Islam claims we have to submit to Allah, Judaism is a culturaly exclusive religion, and a “personal god” is a personally exclusive god.

If (notice I said IF and it’s a big IF) there is a god, I doubt he/she would think very highly of any of these images.

where do you draw the line for golden rule violation? You can’t know where to draw it, your only human.

pain and suffering are necessary for the control of all religion not just christianity. Every religion today uses some form of thought control. Sin, remission, exclusivety, something.

ok lets say you specifically are a very rich person, and yu forgot your wallet at home. you see a guy who looks pretty walk by and you figure hes got enough money to get you through the night without you having to go back to your place and get your own money. so you kill him and you take his money.

is that, morally, the same exact thing as breathing? would the world be just fine AOK if everybody felony murdered as much as they breathed?

no. so whats the rule? ive said it plenty of times, aim your own happiness and the happiness of others at the average level of happiness that you perceive. put yourself above the average at the cost of putting somebody else below, and you are evil. works just fine in any example. ill start a new thread for this, we need something like the golden irony to soak this stuff up. sorry cybersage, skythe respond to him.

Well, definately we do not need religion to understand that felony murders are wrong, but I believe what scythekain is trying to say is that we are imperfect beings and we can’t follow a ‘‘golden rule’’ no matter how idealistic it may be, what is realistic is that human error and bad judgement will always violate a ‘‘golden rule’’. Yet, I do not believe we need a religion to dictate what we can do to ‘‘appreciate’’ human life, justice, liberty, etc We may have code of ethics, not necessarily influenced by any religion at all. :slight_smile:

[contented edited by ILP]

You might say that I am trying to do this somewhat, but you’ll have to tell me more about how to do this kind of examination.

How does one begin a psychosocial analysis?

And do you mean nominal beliefs as in religious beliefs that occur particular to relative religions rather than universally?

I’m glad you sympathize. What I was attempting to do was look into my own life and that of others and see what were the common demoninators. I selected four that felt the most significant to humans.
If I am going to participate in a religion then it has to not merely accommodate or tolerate the most vital facets of being human, it must celebrate and exalt them. I have a desire to maximize the value of my life and, perhaps, you can sense that and you resonate.
When these kind of religions comes along and I think they will and are as evolution proceeds, I’ll consider looking into them.

Yes, but I haven’t done this. I never called humans “sinners” and I haven’t made “salvation” an element. All I have done is to select what I felt were the most important things to humans as they are right now and exalt those, make a religion based on those.

I would say that this is why we have instituted laws, so that we can attempted to universalize certain minimal standards for behavior and why the golden rule is a rather limited notion in practical situations. We don’t trust the golden rule today as much as some want to advocate its usefulness. We trust the rule of law more.
No offense, Future Man, but I’m a skeptic of how the golden rule as it is one more Biblical idea that is interpreted willy-nilly all over the place.
Yes, I just used “willy nilly” in a sentence.

This is very important to your criticism of my original post, Scythekain.

You see, the concepts of “sin,” “remission,” “judgment,” and “God” are a packaged deal. If you don’t have God, then they all go away.
What you would have to do, Scythekain, is show me how your disdain for these ideas that you have listed as being critical flaws for “religion” in general are the flaws for the religion I have described as a possible legitimate human religion.
One thing you have aptly done is question whether I have made religion “better.” Well, you must consider whether I have succeeded in removing the emphasis on what you believe to be the exclusionary, thought control elements and whether you deem that to be an improvement on the concept of religion as it has developed so far in the world.
I have to reiterate that this is very important for you to show to me, so that I can see my potential errors in creating another failure.

Yes and we have the Law.

what your stating sounds like humanism plus god.

take out god and your a full fleged humanist.

why do we have to make a religion? I think we could all live find as humanists. You want to call that a ‘religion’? so be it, just remember that we don’t need god to do good to each other.

I truly am stumped about your beliefs at this point. Are you atheist? agnostic? believe in a personal god?

anyways what you say isn’t wrong it’s just… hmm…
While laws are used to universalize our morals into ethics sometimes (like is happening right now in america) a majorities incorrect and flawed morals get shoved into ethical standards (i.e. gay marriage) So we can’t even really trust laws as setting a “right and wrong” standard. I mean clearly we can see that being homosexual doesn’t mean you should be denied rights? And it’s beyond that as well, it’s like saying “they are subhuman and don’t deserve rights, so we can take them away in law”.

I’ll have to come back to you on that one. (not trying to avoid the subject but it’s late and I need to get to bed!)

Not a smart move. A serious participation of a semi-acadamic discussion requires the use of trusted sources. ‘Google it up’ is not a trusted source to my knowledge, as you may know too. Matter of fact, I too can find the same thing against your believes with the help of ol’ google.

Please, I’ve warned you many times before, don’t tell lies and do not make any idle talks of which you’ve no knowledge of.