«

[Sebatianos]

No. Religion doesn't dicourage the individual thought.
But it is trying to prove, that every thought an individual makes came from the being that created the universe.
Some religions do that by accepting different thoughts and if necesary they even change their statemants, for they have been proven wrong in their interpretations of the devine message (for instance judeism did not fight the theory of evolution - it just started puting it in a religious frame - they don't deny it, but they don't believe that evolution is something that could have happened outside the will of the creator).
Other religions (mostly catholic) are less openminded and they rather fought thinkers then listened to them. It was the current pope that finally admited Galileo was right (although Galileo never said anything that could be contrary to the statemants of the bible). In the catholic church it's usually individual interpretators who give their understanding as the truth - so more people know about what they should do and how they should believe - then what it actually says in the gospels. That's sad.
Other religions are more or less open. Islam is less open then budism (which is more a philosophy then a religion), but in every religion new thoughts come and influence it.
That's how the movemants inside the religions started, to reform something. Only if the frustration was really great and mistakes really big, the reformation ment a new religion. Otherwise there was some revision and that was it. And those changes were caused by great men, that were strong individuals.

But it is understandable, that religions should teach humility (well maybe not satanism - if that could even be considered a religion). All people are subjects of GOD(s). So people must stay humble and respect the will of the supreme being. If religion would encourage individualism too much, then that would mean less humble followers, who would be tempted to do wrong.

[xcom freak]

Originally posted by Yobor@Mar 12 2005, 10:04 PM
Well consider this....
If everyone in every religion thought for themselves, there would be no unified religions anywhere, for, there would be no need. The purpose of a "church" is to tell people what to do. People dont want to think, so they will be told by their religious leaders how to live their lives. If people thought, they would know how to live their lives and would not have to be told.

True but...

people in the same religion are unified by the guide lines of this reliogion...
i think for myself that Christ existed and i beleive for myself in his teachings thats what bond me with anoher christian we might disagree on some points but still the basis is the same

[Sebatianos]

@Yobor:
You said that it's the people who don't want to think and that they go to "church" for guidence. (Or did I understand it wrong?)
In that case you really can't blame the "church" for people not thinking. They didn't wish to think in the first place. If the people are sheep (and some really are like that) then they either get a protector, who even thinks instead of them, or they get eaten by a big bad wolf (whatever that creature might be).

[Stroggy]

Religion is a philosophy. The belief in a higher being and following a moral code. This does however not dictate the way one lives their life, just that there are rules between humans towards eachother. Rules like: thou shalt not kill.
As such many inter-religious debates have been held. The moment a person or body assumes control over the religion in an authoritarian fashion dictating what people should and shouldn't think the institution is manipulating, not the religion.

[Havell]

She said "many", not "all", so she is not generalizing. And I would agree that currently many religions currently do discourage people from trying many things and flat out rule against many things (such as comdoms).

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by R Havell@Mar 12 2005, 10:17 PM
many religions currently do discourage people from trying many things and flat out rule against many things (such as comdoms).

That would be the institution again, not the religion itself.

[Sebatianos]

Has anybody read steinbecks book East of Eden?
There's a lovely passage in it, when the chinesee butler goes to the elder chinesee philosophers and tells them about the story of Kain and Able (and how a single word is changed in two different editions of the bible). It was about the God's words: "thou shall command the sin" (I'm not sure what the correct english quote is - I'm translating it back from slovene into english) and "comand the sin".
First one should be a prediction of what will happen and the second one an order of what you must do.
After the chinesee thinkers heard of this, they started learning Hebrew, to read the original and they found it said: Thou can command sin.
Meaning you have a choice. You are alowed and capable of doing it, but you don't have to.

These are small differences, but they make a great difference. They change the whole atitude - from an option, into a prediction, to a command. Religion should just try to explain things - but that would only give guidelines, not rules.
The majority of people needs and wants rules - otherwise they are lost. But as soon as the religion gives rules - it's not a philosophy anymore. I guess that there hasn't been a religion in the western world, that would not have crossed this fine line at least a few times. But those that got more power and influence because of that (money played a big part too) were more reluctant to return to the philosophical side of the line.

[xcom freak]

Originally posted by Stroggy+Mar 12 2005, 10:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stroggy @ Mar 12 2005, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-R Havell@Mar 12 2005, 10:17 PM
many religions currently do discourage people from trying many things and flat out rule against many things (such as comdoms).

That would be the institution again, not the religion itself. [/b][/quote]
Exactly people should know how to separate church from religion

[Yobor]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Mar 12 2005, 10:13 PM
@Yobor:
You said that it's the people who don't want to think and that they go to "church" for guidence. (Or did I understand it wrong?)
In that case you really can't blame the "church" for people not thinking. They didn't wish to think in the first place. If the people are sheep (and some really are like that) then they either get a protector, who even thinks instead of them, or they get eaten by a big bad wolf (whatever that creature might be).

Ahh, but here is where it gets tricky.
(Now anything I say after this is NOT about non-Christian religions.)
Because people's ancestors believe one thing, they are taught from early childhood to believe a certain way. Human personalities are not born with, they are created over time from experiences. Only a few people can break through the 'brainwashing'* that occurs just from being raised by another human. People stay with the church because they have been taught to be lost without it. Thus, they are made into sheep by their predecessors, the already sheep.
(Ok now I'm talking about all religions)
The terrorist groups in the Middle East are taught from childhood to hate the other side. Just like other groups teach their children to be sheep.
@Havell
Thanks

*Even I have not escaped the brainwashing. In reality, I am just spouting the rhetoric my predesessors have. However, my father and another person I know actually did choose for themselves. But then again, I am 13, so...

[Yobor]

Originally posted by R Havell@Mar 12 2005, 10:17 PM
.... many religions currently do discourage people from trying many things and flat out rule against many things (such as comdoms).

Has anyone seen Monty Python and the Meaning of Life? There is a skit (Which Seb knows all about) where the guys sings about not using a condom. Then the protestant family next door talks about how they are allowed but don't have sex anyway. I find it hilariously funny. You should check it out.
Best Deal I could find