Religion is Good

[Traveler]

I apologize for not posting on this thread sooner – I was away.  @prisonchaplain is a person I respect greatly – but on this subject, I believe he is a little biased.   I believe he should have titled this thread “Religion can and ought to be good”.  Saying that “religion is good” is in logic, what is known as a definitive statement which is completely disproven with a single negative example.  

I will reference scripture for my single negative example.  In the Old Testament there was a religion called the worship of Baal.  It was specific in its teaching intended to bring a person seeking after G-d a means of understanding and pleasing him.  The problem with Baal worship as a religion, is that it was full of false doctrine and practices – that plagued the children of Israel and enticed them away from the “True and Living G-d” testified of in the Old and New Testament.  

It is my personal belief that if one diverts in even the slightest manner or way prescribed by G-d to his prophets and Apostles of the Old and New Testament – that such a religion should not be labeled as “good”, even if there is some temporary (worldly or pertaining to mortality) benefit derived.

At this point I pondered if I ought to introduce that in the last almost 2,000 years or so (for sake of discussion – say 1,500 years) that in comparison to benefit to humanity and tracking truth – science has generally outperformed religion.   However, I do not intend to highjack this thread.

If one wants to witness to truths that come from G-d – I believe that they ought to be absolutely sure that they are correct in their understanding of what is G-d and specifically the manifestations of his works.  But there is a problem with such a discussion.  I would suggest that some of the greatest tragedies of mankind have come about because of claims of religion especially false claims – including even in the Christian religion.  In scripture, even Jesus, warned about “false Christs” that would plague mankind – especially in a time referenced in scripture as the “last days”.

Perhaps the saddest of all things we learn in scripture is that when the Son of G-d came to dwell among mankind and teach mankind directly of G-d, that those most knowledgeable of true divine scripture (clergy class) would be responsible for trying to kill Him and lead their followers (believers) away from Him.

What I believe the New Testament testifies of – is that those that truly testify of G-d and establish the only covenant singular way to G-d – that they will tick off a lot of people – especially those that have invested in a religion that suits them and their established and desired lifestyle.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

There are many examples of religion gone awry. Further, I'm not going to defend Baal worship. My purpose was to highlight how God can use something we've considered bad for so long--religion--as a good--a preparation for acceptance of the gospel. My pastor argues that one of the spirits Jesus' crucifixion set out to destroy was that of religion. I suspect that even within the many wards represented here there are probably a few who are more motivated by religion than the Holy Ghost. So, of course, religion can be understood as bad. However, it's amazing how God can use religion itself (again, defined as a system by which one seeks God) can be so useful in preparing a soul to embrace the Good News.

[Traveler]

On 9/18/2023 at 12:43 PM, prisonchaplain said:

There are many examples of religion gone awry. Further, I'm not going to defend Baal worship. My purpose was to highlight how God can use something we've considered bad for so long--religion--as a good--a preparation for acceptance of the gospel. My pastor argues that one of the spirits Jesus' crucifixion set out to destroy was that of religion. I suspect that even within the many wards represented here there are probably a few who are more motivated by religion than the Holy Ghost. So, of course, religion can be understood as bad. However, it's amazing how God can use religion itself (again, defined as a system by which one seeks God) can be so useful in preparing a soul to embrace the Good News.

My thoughts keep coming back to this thread.  I appreciate your most recent response that adds important insight.   Never-the-less I am impressed to add to your most recent thought about religion bringing a person to G-d – or at least closer to G-d. 

Scripture tells us that, “If with all your heart ye truly seek Him (G-d), ye shall surely ever find him.”  Despite this promise, only a select few ever stand before a burning bush and hear the voice of G-d as did Moses.  Obviously, this would indicate that finding G-d is not a burning bush or for that matter selecting a religion?  I am inclined to think that finding G-d is more about a journey (path or way) than a destination.  But we are falling beings and our religion teaches us that we cannot find G-d without the outside intervention of a divine Messiah.  Also known as a redeemer or savior. 

Scripture also tells us to, “Have faith and be believing and all things will turn for our good”.  And yet, the journey through life is so full of failures and disappointments.  There is one thought from Peter in the New Testament that I think applies.  In essence, he said that if in this life only we have hope in Christ, that we are of all men most miserable.   I am impressed that if we expect all things in this life to turn out for our good – in all things before death – that we are most sadly mistaken.  The thought I am getting to is that if we attempt to measure or to prove something good based solely on this life that ends with death – we have failed and will continue to fail through our last breath – despite all our efforts.

Many times, I have attempted to answer the questions of agnostics that doubt there is a merciful and kind G-d to come to – because so much suffering and sadness prevails over justice and any consistent show of mercy.  Perhaps this is because we leave out the resolution of the resurrection and the LDS doctrine of the redemption of the dead as well as for the living.  That despite all the error, transgressions or sins of mortality – though our sins be as scarlet there is hope that all that seek good in their heart will surely find it.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

On 9/11/2023 at 6:18 PM, Carborendum said:

Whenever someone tries to dissect meanings of words, we have to ask two questions:

1. Do the definitions they are using have any useful purpose for the point of discussion?
2. Does the final point they're making actually make sense regardless?

#1. They usually distinguish "religion" (organized existing practice, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam) and "spiritual" (higher power, inclusive, accepting of all).

#2. Their point is that they do not want to be called non-religious or atheist, but neither do they want to be labeled in a way that forces commitment to one religion over another. Whether that makes sense is an open question. I say that to respect all is to commit to none. The spirituality proponent might retort that love wins, love is love, and non-judgment is a higher spirituality.

Perhaps related: When someone makes the mistake of saying they don't believe in "organized religion," I tell them, "Good. You'll love my church."

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I say that to respect all is to commit to none.

I tend to believe that this ^^ is the real reason people say things.  If you commit to none, you aren't bound by anything.

If you're not bound by anything, then you don't really believe in anything.

PC, maybe you can balance my experience.  I've had an awful lot of friends who were evangelicals.  I'm not sure if Pentacostal fits into that category (I personally don't include it) but you're probably more accepted among them than LDS.

My experience has been that

• I hear people "accept Jesus"
• Then they live their lives in such a manner that wouldn't align with the Savior's teachings.

I have to wonder what "accepting Jesus" means to them.  This isn't just a case of "hey, we all have our weaknesses/sins that we're working on."  They know they have trouble with some pretty serious stuff.  But they just say "Jesus will take care of it."  They're not even trying to change.  I believe I've mentioned in the past that one guy said,"Well, He made me this way..."

The reason I bring this up is that there are many "believers" and "church-going folks" who exercise a similar mindset as "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual" by saying "I don't live by any code of conduct or try to follow any rules, but I believe in Jesus."

Do you see this very often?

[prisonchaplain]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

PC, maybe you can balance my experience.  I've had an awful lot of friends who were evangelicals.  I'm not sure if Pentacostal fits into that category (I personally don't include it) but you're probably more accepted among them than LDS.

You're about 80 years out of date. Pentecostals were looked down upon by the mostly Calvinist Evangelicals in the early 1940s. However, the Assemblies of God was eventually accepted into the National Association of Evangelicals. Today it is one of the largest denominations in the group. So, yes, most Pentecostals are considered a subset of Evangelicals.

[prisonchaplain]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My experience has been that

• I hear people "accept Jesus"
• Then they live their lives in such a manner that wouldn't align with the Savior's teachings.

I'm not judging your friends. However, some who say they've accepted Jesus really haven't. There's a Christian song that has a great line: What about the change? What about the difference?  No, we don't earn our salvation, but true salvation results in gratitude--and change. We become new creatures--ones that in word, thought, and deed are heaven-bound.

Then there are those who've too eagerly embraced the "once saved always saved" heresy. They truly believe they've gotten "fire insurance" (Get Out of Hell free). Rather than debate a doctrine that I know LDS do not accept, I'll simply point out that even if that teaching were true, then there should be some evidence of true salvation. The notion that we can say a prayer while harboring full intention to keep right on sinning and still become right with God is wrong. God's not fooled. Sadly, some people are. 

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm not judging your friends. However, some who say they've accepted Jesus really haven't. There's a Christian song that has a great line: What about the change? What about the difference?  No, we don't earn our salvation, but true salvation results in gratitude--and change. We become new creatures--ones that in word, thought, and deed are heaven-bound.

Then there are those who've too eagerly embraced the "once saved always saved" heresy. They truly believe they've gotten "fire insurance" (Get Out of Hell free). Rather than debate a doctrine that I know LDS do not accept, I'll simply point out that even if that teaching were true, then there should be some evidence of true salvation. The notion that we can say a prayer while harboring full intention to keep right on sinning and still become right with God is wrong. God's not fooled. Sadly, some people are. 

It is my understanding that Jesus gave several indications that we can use to understand our particular and individual association to him.  But because we cannot know the inward going on in others – we should only use such things for ourselves.

I have given credence to the idea that going to church no more makes a person a Christian than sleeping in a garage makes someone a Chevy.  For me – going to church or reading scripture is not my goal in life or eternity but rather a means to help me understand and achieve my goals in life and eternity.

 

The Traveler