How has being Religious made you a better person?

Originally Posted by GrandMoffTarkin

And you know what? I know this doesn't hold true for everyone, but I've noticed that people such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims seem to be more down to earth, and more kind at heart.

More down to earth than non-religious people? Or more down to earth than any other religions? I have friends who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Ba'hai, and I don't really see too much of a difference between those friends and my friends who are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

More down to earth than non-religious people? Or more down to earth than any other religions? I have friends who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Ba'hai, and I don't really see too much of a difference between those friends and my friends who are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.

Noticed how I said 'such as'.

What I meant was, people with a religion seem to be nicer people at heart.

Originally Posted by GrandMoffTarkin

Noticed how I said 'such as'.

What I meant was, people with a religion seem to be nicer people at heart.

Except those who abuse it. They usually attract a lot more attention. Other than that I agree with that statement.

I haven't always been a Christian, I used to hate and scorn anyone who I 'thought' was religious.

But since I became a Christian I have become more optimistic and more open minded. I have also become kinder to other people over time. I have learned to forgive, respect and be kind to people who wrong me which also has made me a better person (and I'm not saying that comes easily. Especially when someone does something really bad to you.)

Originally Posted by GrandMoffTarkin

Noticed how I said 'such as'.

What I meant was, people with a religion seem to be nicer people at heart.

I find that people with religion seem to be nicer people at face. You never know what that person actually feels, you just know that they're following a particular set of rules which supposedly makes them behave in a moral manner. For the same reason they may suddenly do a 180 when something they don't like happens, and use their religion to back that up too.

Of course, if you agree with what they're saying or thinking, and your morality lines up with theirs, they'll obviously seem nicer to you.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I find that people with religion seem to be nicer people at face. You never know what that person actually feels, you just know that they're following a particular set of rules which supposedly makes them behave in a moral manner. For the same reason they may suddenly do a 180 when something they don't like happens, and use their religion to back that up too.

Of course, if you agree with what they're saying or thinking, and your morality lines up with theirs, they'll obviously seem nicer to you.

I'm Christian, and I'm nice to everybody. :3 (Ask just about anyone who's had contact with me here at ZU!)

Also, I too feel the need to address the "going to heaven" bit. While back in my evangelical fundamentalist days, which I am not now (yes, there do exist Christians who are not in those categories), I was obsessed with my eternal destiny in the great beyond, nowadays I pay no heed to such things. I try to do good deeds for the sake of the ones for whom I'm doing them--not because I think that some paternalistic deity in the sky will reward me in the hereafter. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love God supremely and to love others as yourself--and every other rule or regulation is an outgrowth of those two. You love God by loving others (your neighbor). No divine threats or promises or paradise needed.

(Heck, even most of the allusions to "hell" in the Bible, especially in Jesus' teachings, are more just visual imagery and metaphor than anything else.)

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I find that people with religion seem to be nicer people at face. You never know what that person actually feels, you just know that they're following a particular set of rules which supposedly makes them behave in a moral manner. For the same reason they may suddenly do a 180 when something they don't like happens, and use their religion to back that up too.

Of course, if you agree with what they're saying or thinking, and your morality lines up with theirs, they'll obviously seem nicer to you.

That's really unfair of you to say that. I mean, I can't even think of exactly what to say in response because it seems as if you're assuming we're all bad people who only like people who agree with us. I'm really not sure what to do when someone judges me like this just because I consider myself religious.

I mean, seriously, when I admit that I'm religious, it's as if I suddenly have a tattoo on my head that says, "CRAZY PERSON."

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I find that people with religion seem to be nicer people at face. You never know what that person actually feels, you just know that they're following a particular set of rules which supposedly makes them behave in a moral manner. For the same reason they may suddenly do a 180 when something they don't like happens, and use their religion to back that up too.

Of course, if you agree with what they're saying or thinking, and your morality lines up with theirs, they'll obviously seem nicer to you.

this smells like GDwarf's dungeon.....

but anyway I would say that this is a tad bit over-generalizing, there may be some truth in it. I'm sure there's religious people out there like that, but i'm sure there's also non religious people out there like that. Gemini's, for example, are very much like that, if you follow astrology (I don't really).

Originally Posted by Sapphira

That's really unfair of you to say that. I mean, I can't even think of exactly what to say in response because it seems as if you're assuming we're all bad people who only like people who agree with us. I'm really not sure what to do when someone judges me like this just because I consider myself religious.

I mean, seriously, when I admit that I'm religious, it's as if I suddenly have a tattoo on my head that says, "CRAZY PERSON."

When you say you're religious, and you state which religion you are, people will immediately associate you with the first thing that comes to their heads about that religion. The religion giving off that impression is practically its own fault, since to both ignorant people, and those who are educated, tend to see it that way. If you know a religion has this stigma, and you know people will take it that way when you admit you're a member of it to them, you shouldn't be surprised that they react that way - you make the choice of being a member of that religion. Sure you can explain yourself to them perhaps, and you have every right to believe it, but they have every right to think you're crazy based on what you believe as you have to be offended by something that wasn't intended to be offensive.

Take a religion, any religion, one you don't follow, and in many cases people will see at least one aspect of it to be "crazy". The only people who don't see that religion as "crazy" are the people who follow it. After all, if you thought your own religion was silly, you wouldn't follow it, and if you thought another religion was less silly then your own, you'd follow that.

I didn't say "all religious people are bad", either. Basically I said "at face" because you never know what they're feeling "at heart". I responded to GrandMoffTarkin the way I did because I didn't agree with how he was implying that most religious people are better than non-religious people, purely on the basis that they were religious and follow religious rules. You can't say that for sure unless you know WHY they're religious, or WHY they're better people for it. I assume this is because of reasons such as "Christians are more likely to be charitable than atheists", but that doesn't count for anything if you're only doing it because a book told you to. Even if you do actually WANT to do it, there's the matter of WHY you want to (getting into heaven, following Jesus' example, genuine motivation to help those in need regardless of your religion, etc. Only one of these is admirable).

And as I stated there, if you think that what Christianity tells you is good, then you will obviously find a Christian who follows that to be good. If you don't, then you won't. I mean, a Christian can be a loving, caring, and tolerant person, but that caring is moot if they're not doing it out of a genuine motivation to do that stuff, but out of a motivation to follow a book that tells them to do that stuff. GrandMoffTarkin's claim was that religious people are better people, but since he was speaking from the perspective of a religious person, who agrees with a religious morality, and I like to think I observe from an objective, logical approach at morality, I would disagree with a lot of things even New Testament Christianity advocates, simply because the justification is "Jesus did it, you must too, Jesus is automatically good, therefore if you do anything he did you're good too". By proxy, if you believe that, you will believe that if people go against the teachings of Jesus, that they must be immoral. Hence why many religious people believe that atheists are immoral - we disagree with them. I didn't say anything about liking or disliking anywhere.

Originally Posted by Rew

I'm Christian, and I'm nice to everybody. :3 (Ask just about anyone who's had contact with me here at ZU!)

I just want to point out that you are incredibly modest. What happened to that Christian humility eh? Or is pride and recognition of your own virtues not a sin in your book, unlike in so many other parts of the religion where they basically ask you to hate yourself and never think yourself worthy of praise? If they aren't, your book gets a partial thumbs-up from me.

Also, I too feel the need to address the "going to heaven" bit. While back in my evangelical fundamentalist days, which I am not now (yes, there do exist Christians who are not in those categories), I was obsessed with my eternal destiny in the great beyond, nowadays I pay no heed to such things. I try to do good deeds for the sake of the ones for whom I'm doing them--not because I think that some paternalistic deity in the sky will reward me in the hereafter. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love God supremely and to love others as yourself--and every other rule or regulation is an outgrowth of those two. You love God by loving others (your neighbor). No divine threats or promises or paradise needed.

Loving others because you want to love God isn't loving others unconditionally, now is it? You're not loving them because you want to love them, you're loving them because it lines up with your interest in loving God (or you're loving God because it lines up with your interest in loving them). Unconditional love is something I don't believe in, but some do, and that wouldn't be an example of it in my view.

(Heck, even most of the allusions to "hell" in the Bible, especially in Jesus' teachings, are more just visual imagery and metaphor than anything else.)

The important thing is that they're there.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

When you say you're religious, and you state which religion you are, people will immediately associate you with the first thing that comes to their heads about that religion. The religion giving off that impression is practically its own fault, since to both ignorant people, and those who are educated, tend to see it that way. If you know a religion has this stigma, and you know people will take it that way when you admit you're a member of it to them, you shouldn't be surprised that they react that way - you make the choice of being a member of that religion. Sure you can explain yourself to them perhaps, and you have every right to believe it, but they have every right to think you're crazy based on what you believe as you have to be offended by something that wasn't intended to be offensive.

Take a religion, any religion, one you don't follow, and in many cases people will see at least one aspect of it to be "crazy". The only people who don't see that religion as "crazy" are the people who follow it. After all, if you thought your own religion was silly, you wouldn't follow it, and if you thought another religion was less silly then your own, you'd follow that.

I didn't say "all religious people are bad", either. Basically I said "at face" because you never know what they're feeling "at heart". I responded to GrandMoffTarkin the way I did because I didn't agree with how he was implying that most religious people are better than non-religious people, purely on the basis that they were religious and follow religious rules. You can't say that for sure unless you know WHY they're religious, or WHY they're better people for it. I assume this is because of reasons such as "Christians are more likely to be charitable than atheists", but that doesn't count for anything if you're only doing it because a book told you to. Even if you do actually WANT to do it, there's the matter of WHY you want to (getting into heaven, following Jesus' example, genuine motivation to help those in need regardless of your religion, etc. Only one of these is admirable).

And as I stated there, if you think that what Christianity tells you is good, then you will obviously find a Christian who follows that to be good. If you don't, then you won't. I mean, a Christian can be a loving, caring, and tolerant person, but that caring is moot if they're not doing it out of a genuine motivation to do that stuff, but out of a motivation to follow a book that tells them to do that stuff. GrandMoffTarkin's claim was that religious people are better people, but since he was speaking from the perspective of a religious person, who agrees with a religious morality, and I like to think I observe from an objective, logical approach at morality, I would disagree with a lot of things even New Testament Christianity advocates, simply because the justification is "Jesus did it, you must too, Jesus is automatically good, therefore if you do anything he did you're good too". By proxy, if you believe that, you will believe that if people go against the teachings of Jesus, that they must be immoral. Hence why many religious people believe that atheists are immoral - we disagree with them. I didn't say anything about liking or disliking anywhere.



I just want to point out that you are incredibly modest. What happened to that Christian humility eh? Or is pride and recognition of your own virtues not a sin in your book, unlike in so many other parts of the religion where they basically ask you to hate yourself and never think yourself worthy of praise? If they aren't, your book gets a partial thumbs-up from me.



Loving others because you want to love God isn't loving others unconditionally, now is it? You're not loving them because you want to love them, you're loving them because it lines up with your interest in loving God (or you're loving God because it lines up with your interest in loving them). Unconditional love is something I don't believe in, but some do, and that wouldn't be an example of it in my view.



The important thing is that they're there.

Come on mate, you know this belongs in a different thread. I would recommend re-posting this in a different thread before it gets deleted.

I still really don't appreciate you judging me, or anyone else like that. It's rude, unfair, and generally uninformed. And you're essentially blaming me for it by saying, "You chose it, so now you have to deal with people thinking you're crazy." Well, shouldn't you be smart enough to know better than to assume that everyone who's religious is crazy and not very nice?

This topic is about how being religious has made us better people. It is not about whether or not religious people in general are good or bad. It's not about how we should or should not judge people. It's not about how the only way to be a good person is to be religious. But for some of us, including those who are taking this topic seriously, religion has helped us to become better people than we were before we took our faiths seriously. And if you're not going to respect that, then that's fine, but please don't swagger into this topic saying that you're going to say what you want to say, and it's our own fault if we are hurt or angry at your comments.

And Rew's telling the truth. He's incredibly nice.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

I still really don't appreciate you judging me, or anyone else like that. It's rude, unfair, and generally uninformed. And you're essentially blaming me for it by saying, "You chose it, so now you have to deal with people thinking you're crazy." Well, shouldn't you be smart enough to know better than to assume that everyone who's religious is crazy and not very nice?

I wasn't judging you. I also don't believe such people are crazy, in fact some religious people are rational, they simply come to a different conclusion than I do. Nor do I believe that they're all not very nice. I actually only just said that in my last post, which was clearly tl;dr for you. I just stated that if people think you're crazy, they have every right to, and if you know you're a member of a religion that people will think you're crazy for, you chose that religion, you know what's involved in that, and if you're that religious you won't care what people think of you for it. It's no one's fault but yours and your religion's, your persecution complex isn't going to change that. People aren't going to change just so that your beliefs become sane, and it's "rude, unfair, and generally uninformed" to believe that. You have every right to believe it, though!

This topic is about how being religious has made us better people. It is not about whether or not religious people in general are good or bad. It's not about how we should or should not judge people. It's not about how the only way to be a good person is to be religious. But for some of us, including those who are taking this topic seriously, religion has helped us to become better people than we were before we took our faiths seriously. And if you're not going to respect that, then that's fine, but please don't swagger into this topic saying that you're going to say what you want to say, and it's our own fault if we are hurt or angry at your comments.

Firstly I don't see whose fault it is that you're offended by my opinions other than your own for disagreeing with me, or mine for disagreeing with you. Works both ways, so stop acting as if I'm the one who's in the wrong here. We're both well within our rights to disagree with each other.

Secondly I'm aware what the topic's about, it's about people who feel that religion has made them a better person to post for themselves about their experiences. I was simply responding to Tarkin's post by pointing out that the state of being religious does not make you a better person in and of itself, even on a general basis, and I thought the mere suggestion was enough to warrant correction. Perhaps I should have elaborated and avoided this altogether. My error.

And Rew's telling the truth. He's incredibly nice.

I didn't once say he wasn't.

sage of earth, sapphira, this needs to be taken to another thread.

It doesn't need to be taken to any thread. It's done, I believe I've made my point, nothing more needs to be said unless she objects to anything I've said and those objections are concerning something relevant to the discussion, and are relevant to the discussion themselves.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Perhaps I'm being overzealous here, but I'm gonna say that this thread, and from now on the atheism one, are going to stay mostly positive. We have enough threads generally debating religion, we don't need more.

We'll see how this works out. I'm half-worried that it'll end with the two threads dying, but I'd currently prefer that to having the religious debates spiral out to two new threads. -_-.

Originally Posted by puck

SO yeah, becoming religious made me a better person, how has it helped you? (Let's try not to start fights, mmmmkay)

...out of respect of the intentions of the thread and the requests of this sections mod, yes it needs to be taken to a different thread.

well, I'm done contributing to the spam on this thread.

[/spam]

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I just want to point out that you are incredibly modest. What happened to that Christian humility eh? Or is pride and recognition of your own virtues not a sin in your book, unlike in so many other parts of the religion where they basically ask you to hate yourself and never think yourself worthy of praise? If they aren't, your book gets a partial thumbs-up from me.

It actually is a pretty tricky issue. There's an ongoing joke that says, "The moment you realize you've reached humility--you've failed."

So there is a paradoxical element to humility. Anyway, I actually used to be pretty self-debasing, but I try not to be anymore. There are certain so-called "humble" people whom I've known who would constantly discredit any compliment or praise sent their way: "Oh no, I'm not really that good." "No, that's not me. I'm not so capable." And the like. But that's only false humility--a subtle version of pride (namely because it implicitly urges people to disagree with your self-deprecations!).

There is a different type of pride that is neither vainglory nor arrogance (though it can run awfully close--the line is blurry), a more kind of "honor pride," I guess you could say. It's similar to the boasts you see several biblical figures (e.g. Paul) make of themselves.

Loving others because you want to love God isn't loving others unconditionally, now is it? You're not loving them because you want to love them, you're loving them because it lines up with your interest in loving God (or you're loving God because it lines up with your interest in loving them). Unconditional love is something I don't believe in, but some do, and that wouldn't be an example of it in my view.

Haha! I believe you misundestood me--or rather, that I failed to communicate it well. What I meant to convey is that the best way to love God (whom no one can see) is by loving others (whom we can see). Put another way, when we truly love our fellow human--for their own sake, with an unselfish, disinterested, impartial love/loyalty/devotion/service--only then do we prove that we truly love God as well. (Side note: Contrary to most theists, I think of God not so much as some beard-wearing old man in a distant sky, but rather as the supreme embodiment of the Good, similar to how the ancient Greek philosophers thought of God (or their supreme God).)

The strong point with this interpretation of Jesus' twofold command is to eliminate self-centered piety. In other words, whereas much harm has come to people that was justified in the name of piety (e.g. using vast sums of money to construct an ornate church but ignore the surrounding slums, or a more extreme example, killing those who don't convert to the faith), with a right understanding of Jesus' command, serving others comes before all else. Hollow piety ultimately fails (or ideally, should).

Now to anticipate Sage of Earth's next objection: "But if you're just loving or serving others just to earn God's favor, that's still unconditional." And to that I would say that, yes, if anyone is just going through the motions, doing things for others because they think there are divine "perks" that come with the job, you are correct. But what I'm saying is that we should love people and do things for them for their own sake. To frame it more secularly, if someone wants to do good things for people only to be recognized as a good person, it rings rather hollow. But if they do good things out of genuinely caring for people, then they are called a good person without specifically aiming at improving their reputation. It's a similar principle with the "love God by loving others" bit.

(That turned out to be harder to explain than I thought. )

Originally Posted by morval

...out of respect of the intentions of the thread and the requests of this sections mod, yes it needs to be taken to a different thread.

well, I'm done contributing to the spam on this thread.

[/spam]

You know what I meant - the discussion's over. It can't be taken anywhere because it no longer exists.

Originally Posted by Rew

It actually is a pretty tricky issue. There's an ongoing joke that says, "The moment you realize you've reached humility--you've failed."

So there is a paradoxical element to humility. Anyway, I actually used to be pretty self-debasing, but I try not to be anymore. There are certain so-called "humble" people whom I've known who would constantly discredit any compliment or praise sent their way: "Oh no, I'm not really that good." "No, that's not me. I'm not so capable." And the like. But that's only false humility--a subtle version of pride (namely because it implicitly urges people to disagree with your self-deprecations!).

There is a different type of pride that is neither vainglory nor arrogance (though it can run awfully close--the line is blurry), a more kind of "honor pride," I guess you could say. It's similar to the boasts you see several biblical figures (e.g. Paul) make of themselves.

Pride isn't a bad thing, it's only your religion that makes you think that, so you've kind of proven a point of mine by trying to get around the suggestion that you may just be proud of yourself. And as far as I'm concerned "honour-pride" is a redundancy, but yeah.

Haha! I believe you misundestood me--or rather, that I failed to communicate it well. What I meant to convey is that the best way to love God (whom no one can see) is by loving others (whom we can see). Put another way, when we truly love our fellow human--for their own sake, with an unselfish, disinterested, impartial love/loyalty/devotion/service--only then do we prove that we truly love God as well. (Side note: Contrary to most theists, I think of God not so much as some beard-wearing old man in a distant sky, but rather as the supreme embodiment of the Good, similar to how the ancient Greek philosophers thought of God (or their supreme God).)

The strong point with this interpretation of Jesus' twofold command is to eliminate self-centered piety. In other words, whereas much harm has come to people that was justified in the name of piety (e.g. using vast sums of money to construct an ornate church but ignore the surrounding slums, or a more extreme example, killing those who don't convert to the faith), with a right understanding of Jesus' command, serving others comes before all else. Hollow piety ultimately fails (or ideally, should).

Now to anticipate Sage of Earth's next objection: "But if you're just loving or serving others just to earn God's favor, that's still unconditional." And to that I would say that, yes, if anyone is just going through the motions, doing things for others because they think there are divine "perks" that come with the job, you are correct. But what I'm saying is that we should love people and do things for them for their own sake. To frame it more secularly, if someone wants to do good things for people only to be recognized as a good person, it rings rather hollow. But if they do good things out of genuinely caring for people, then they are called a good person without specifically aiming at improving their reputation. It's a similar principle with the "love God by loving others" bit.

(That turned out to be harder to explain than I thought. )

As opposed to just admitting that you can't both love everyone and love God unconditionally when the two are inextricably linked? If I were in your position I wouldn't think it so bad that someone's suggesting that there is no "unconditional love", but the love itself is good enough. If you're loving others for their own sake, you're not doing it to love God, it's just a side-effect. If you're doing it to love God, you're not actually loving others, and so THAT'S just a side-effect.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Pride isn't a bad thing, it's only your religion that makes you think that. And as far as I'm concerned "honour-pride" is a redundancy, but yeah.

Someone being an arrogant prick is bad--I think that was the original intent behind making "pride" taboo.

As opposed to just admitting that you can't both love everyone and love God unconditionally when the two are inextricably linked? If I were in your position I wouldn't think it so bad that someone's suggesting that there is no "unconditional love", but the love itself is good enough. If you're loving others for their own sake, you're not doing it to love God, it's just a side-effect. If you're doing it to love God, you're not actually loving others, and so THAT'S just a side-effect.

Eh, something like that. Side effect is a sufficient way of putting it. I have no substantial disagreement.

Originally Posted by Rew

Someone being an arrogant prick is bad--I think that was the original intent behind making "pride" taboo.

I rather enjoy it myself, but oh well

Eh, something like that. Side effect is a sufficient way of putting it. I have no substantial disagreement.

Fair enough, at least you concede that. It's not actually bad, as I say.

I don't see how a person can't love God and other people unconditionally. Besides, think of how your parents raised you. Today, you might be doing something because you know that it's important or the right thing to do. But weren't there times when you were younger where your mother or father or guardian had to tell you to do the right thing?

In this capacity, God is just another parent. Our parents tell us it's important to eat broccoli when we're little, and when we're older, we understand why it's important, and we (hopefully) do it. When we have a fight with a friend, our parents teach us the importance of apologizing, and as we grow older, it becomes important to us on our own. And in a religious context, it's important to love others unconditionally. And so we learn, as we grow older, what that means, why it's important, and how to do that.

Originally Posted by Sapphira

I don't see how a person can't love God and other people unconditionally. Besides, think of how your parents raised you. Today, you might be doing something because you know that it's important or the right thing to do. But weren't there times when you were younger where your mother or father or guardian had to tell you to do the right thing?

In this capacity, God is just another parent. Our parents tell us it's important to eat broccoli when we're little, and when we're older, we understand why it's important, and we (hopefully) do it. When we have a fight with a friend, our parents teach us the importance of apologizing, and as we grow older, it becomes important to us on our own. And in a religious context, it's important to love others unconditionally. And so we learn, as we grow older, what that means, why it's important, and how to do that.

True, but that doesn't really contradict my assertion that you can't do one AND the other at the same time, because one motivation leads to one end, and another leads to the other, so they're mutually exclusive.