religion is a result of human emtion

1. 64

   Knight6posted 12 years ago

   why is it that every time humans turn to their repective gods it is usally as a result of some form of emtion sad happy guilt etc..
   "if you believe in light it is because of darkness,
   if you believe in joy it is because of sadness
   and if you believe in god it is because of the devil....."
   that is take from a track of music written by engima the point and the question is "is religion there because of emtions?"

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes and no.  No because it was started by the shamans in a power play to control others around him.  Yes because the "magic" he used caused fear and thus allowed the control he wanted.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Knight6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         yes this is ture it all started as power play but to control the people you feed off there emotion and to do that you create something to fear religion!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Correct; you said it better than I did.
            
            Except it's "their" instead of "there"!

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, God (and yes I mean God Himself, not some man-made god) is emotional.  He Loves, He hates, He has compassion, He feels vengeance, etc.
      Humans are made in His image, with the ability to feel emotions.
      
      
      
      As far as other religions and pagan gods, those are the ones where human beings try to project their own emotions onto lifeless unemotional icons or fabrications.
      
      So, I answer your question like wilderness did (but for a different reason)---
      Yes, "religion" (worship of any indefinite thing) is there because of emotions.
      No, religion (belief in God) isn't there because of emotion;  emotion is there because of religion.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Knight6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         thank you for your reply but when i said respective gods what i meant was there repective beliefs as for god feeling hate and vengeance that kind of goes against the bible and what we are lead to believe if emotion is there becauce of religion what did people do before religion?not feel the belief in god is only around with the last 2000 years

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Doesn't go against the Bible at all.  Have you read any of it?  God's emotions are a key part of the Bible.  Love is the most powerful emotion of all, and God IS Love.   The other emotions are equally valid.
            
            I take it that your point is that people invent "gods" and God because of their emotions?  In particular guilt, maybe?   Or is there some point I missed? 
            I agree people invent gods.  They didn't invent God, though.
            
            And you ask what did people do before "religion"?
            Eh....religion has been around for as long as there were people.  God made the first man.   I'm not a believer in the fallacy of neanderthal man, etc.   Man was made grown-up, walkin' talkin' feelin'.  The first man was, anyway.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You're right.  Homo neanderthalensis was not a man; that term is generally reserved for homo sapiens (us).
               
               It was, however, a fire and tool using animal that buried its dead, possible in a religious ceremony (burial usually is a religious ceremony) and cooked its food. On the scene in Europe before man, it interbred to a limited extent with man, but went extinct shortly after true man arrived on the scene. 
               
               As the only other animal known to truly use fire , produced art in the form of paintings as well as jewelry and had a brain nearly the size of ours perhaps we should expand the non-biological term "man" to include the neanderthals.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  interbred with what men?  The ones who weren't there yet?  lol.  True man?  What are you talking about?

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Homo sapiens did not appear all over the globe all at once.  They originated in Africa/near east area and spread out from there.
                     
                     By the time that homo sapiens entered Europe Neanderthals had already been there for thousands of years, along with many other animals.
                     
                     Sorry - I should have probably said "homo sapiens" rather than "true man".  That was what I meant - that neanderthal went extinct shortly after the arrival of homo sapiens (man).  'Shortly' being a few thousand years - the exact date of the death of the very last neanderthal is of course impossible to determine.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I know I'm gonna be sorry I asked, but....
                        
                        From what source(s) do you believe that stuff?   Fossils?  Carbon dating?  The scratchings on cave walls?  Later writings of the deluded....er....deductive minds of the time?

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           All four.  Why do you NOT understand it?  Because you simply don't want to?  Because it conflicts with previously held beliefs?  Because you refuse to think about it?  Because of the deluded...er...questioning minds of ignorant goat herders 2000 years ago and more?
                           
                           Now that we have sufficiently (I hope) insulted the knowledge and learning of each other would you care to continue the discussion of neanderthal?  Perhaps we can both learn here - if nothing else how someone of a very different background thinks and learns.  Or not.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              hmm..
                              
                              I think I might be interested in finding out what you think makes a person human, as opposed to "homo-sapiens" or animal...
                              
                              
                              But this is the wrong thread for this, I think.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 That is a subject I'm interested in seeing opinions on - given two creatures how do you determine which one is human?  What tests can you make?  A definition is of course mandatory first.
                                 
                                 It is also a question that, to me, is integral to any discussion of abortion.

                                 replyreport
               2. 80

                  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree wilderness.
                  Information should change to be current and inline with new understanding. Homo Neanderthals should now be included in the term.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I kind of lean that way.  Anything that can use fire, make complex tools and art and ceremonially bury its dead is probably smart enough to be considered "man".
                     
                     Of course that would mean that "man" comes from intelligence and not genetics, shape or soul.  ET (someday perhaps) would be a "man".  The other attributes would still apply only to "homo sapiens".

                     replyreport
      2. 83

         donotfearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Very well said, Brenda!!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            donotfear, hello;  hope you're doing well these days.

            replyreport
      3. 57

         A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, God (and yes I mean the very same God Himself that you refer, not some man-made god from some other religion in which the followers also consider their god to be the actual god and the god you believe is actually man-made) goes beyond just feeling vengeance and hatred, He carries them out in acts of destruction or commands humans to act out His aggression.
         
         If humans were made in His image, have we also learned from Him to carry out our hatred and vengeance as He does?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Umm...    He is, after all, God.  We're not.  He judges righteously.  All humans aren't capable of that.   
            ..I think the closest to doing that well would be our American system of justice.   We have the ability to do that through that system of civil rights and providing attorneys, etc., using the "innocent until proven guilty" motto, and the jury system.   That would indicate hatred, yes, but not hatred for individuals;  it's hatred for seeing crimes committed upon other humans; and yes it's a form of vengeance for the victim.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Humans certainly thought they could judge righteously and many still do. But for the most part, societies have gone beyond judging righteously and have become more secular to make sure people like yourself aren't religiously persecuted because of your beliefs, that you have and hold the right to believe whatever you want. We also found that stoning someone to death for an act as trivial as wanting to believe in something else wasn't very fair.
                
               
               
               IMSC, I believe you mentioned you have been divorced. If not for the American system of justice, would you have preferred your divorce have been judged and executed centuries ago when we did judge righteously?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  It wouldn't matter which way it was judged.  I wasn't the one who broke the laws of marriage or of God that led up to my divorce.
                  
                  And if you're assuming that the laws then said that all divorcees should get stoned....?....I don't think that happened all the time.  The Samaritan woman apparently didn't get stoned, and she had had what...5 husbands?
                  
                  And if you'll notice, when, in another instance, Jesus told the adulteress to "go and sin no more", her accusers were men.  Men who had somehow "caught" her in the act of adultery?   Wonder how they caught her, or if it wasn't them, who turned her in, and why didn't they turn in the man she was committing adultery with?  And why didn't the men stick around long enough to listen to Jesus's admonishment to repent?
                  
                  So you see, even back then, not all judges nor all people judged righteously anyway.  God did, yes.  His judgements are always righteous.   And if His laws are followed, there is always forgiveness available for the sinner, no matter what.   There was even then.   And there is today, even in our American justice system.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Did he judge people who get a divorce?
                     
                     And break sacred vows to God?
                     
                     What did He say about these sinners? Not real Christians, I think?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        In keeping with the topic of this thread, thanks Evolution Guy for giving me the opportunity to say this-----God's judgement, even then, was tuned into the heart of the person.   God judges the intent of our hearts.  Our hearts either Love Him or don't Love Him.  We either want to follow Him or we don't.   Try reading sometime the passages about God's emotions and what He wants for us and from us. You might be surprised, even enlightened, when you do that instead of trying to judge Him based on your own insecurities or rebellion or whatever it is.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Aww - how insincere of you. Even a simpleton like me can see the lies you are making.
                           
                           Intent to divorce and break god's law? Tell us wot god wants again. LOLOLOLOL

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              You might ask yourself what emotion brings you to make false accusations.  I could help you further with that, but it's best if you figure it out on your own.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 You cannot help your self. Divorce? Burning in hell. What emotion brings you to judge others with a mortal sin over you?
                                 
                                 LOL

                                 replyreport
                        2. 64

                           Knight6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           brenda durham you are correct you either love him or dont love him and in doing so the emotion decides weather religion or the belief in him exists or not in the bible he gave humans free will why?as for the idea that man was created walkin talkin etc yes that is a belief and based on the bible that is what happened but what happened next?adam eve cain and able the bible said these were the first people so how did the rest of us get here?if not through incest then he must have made more who were they? as i have said before the bible is a book and if it is real then god who is all knowing all powerful has made more then just one or two mistakes if however it was written by humans then i understand the errors and also shows that the emotion of humans created the religion because that is how the bible was written and i should know i have read it and followed it all the way to nearly becoming a memeber of the clergy.........but then......

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Nexis19posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Well said!

                              replyreport
   3. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Religion was originally created out of emotion, at first it was fear, then like everything, it evolved into guilt. Two different emotions.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ...but a natural progression.
         Nice to see you.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually Earnest, there wasn't anything natural about it, because it didn't actually follow evolution, but was evolved from humankind changing it's tactics.
            
            But, thank you. Nice to see you as well.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yep! A lot of changes would not have happened without our intervention.

               replyreport
2. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   If emotion is what is important, and religion is important, then emotion is the result of religion.

   replyreport
3. 61

   Nexis19posted 12 years ago

   Ok yes it may be possible that religion is the result of emotion or the other way around. I however agree with the earlier comments mad bye Knight6 and wilderness that it all started as a power play. As society began to develop there needed to be some form of control and religion was a good way to gain control. Using peoples beliefs to control them worked and as time went on the idea evolved and developed. religion is a result of desperation caused by a lack of control in my opinion but the other opinions posted here are equally interesting.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Knight6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      wilderness and your self nexis19 have it in one i believe religion all types and forms of it were created with one goal in mind control..........thank you all for your opinions and feed back

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Nexis19posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Your welcome Knight6

         replyreport
4. 61

   Nexis19posted 12 years ago

   also as a correction to my previous post i meant "made by Knight6 and wilderness" not "mad bye knoght 6 and wilderness"

   replyreport
5. 60

   jay_kumar_07posted 12 years ago

   Religion is a result of human ignorence.

   replyreport