Isn't religion an invention of people just to meet their psychological needs?

[garyzilla]

Christianity does indeed offer the purest route to personal fulfillment. Yet, Christianity, in particular, is filled with paradoxes and difficult demands. As Charles Colson asks, "If we were making up our own god, would we create one with such harsh demands for justice, righteousness, service and self-sacrifice as we find in the biblical texts?"
Jesus said: Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Pride is a sin. If you want to become rich, give away your money. If you truly want to be great, you must be a servant. He said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! And He said being persecuted in His name is a blessing. (Wow!)
According to Jesus, the rich are poor; the up are down; the down are up; the self-righteous are sinners; the sinners are forgiven. The last are first and the first are last.
This kind of talk is not what one would expect to draw throngs of people to meet their psychological needs! This is the opposite of much of modern psychology's emphasis on "self-esteem" or "I'm OK, You're OK." Indeed, as Charles Colson says, the words of Jesus challenge one to the very core of existence, putting at risk one's whole reason for living.
R. C. Sproul points out that the question of origin of religion is really not a psychological one but an historical one. The truth of Christianity is not determined by how it could have started, but how it did start.
Which is the greater psychological crutch—Christianity or atheism? We submit that atheism and agnosticism are really the philosophies to be challenged. Is not atheism a psychological invention to get rid of moral obligation? Because of our egocentricity, God can appear as an awesome threat to us. Atheism and agnosticism want to cover that up by refuting God

[Bob Smith]

Back from vacation and already at it again! Welcome back, Gary!

[dolfe1]

Originally Posted by garyzilla

Christianity does indeed offer the purest route to personal fulfillment. Yet, Christianity, in particular, is filled with paradoxes and difficult demands. As Charles Colson asks, "If we were making up our own god, would we create one with such harsh demands for justice, righteousness, service and self-sacrifice as we find in the biblical texts?"
Jesus said: Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Pride is a sin. If you want to become rich, give away your money. If you truly want to be great, you must be a servant. He said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! And He said being persecuted in His name is a blessing. (Wow!)
According to Jesus, the rich are poor; the up are down; the down are up; the self-righteous are sinners; the sinners are forgiven. The last are first and the first are last.
This kind of talk is not what one would expect to draw throngs of people to meet their psychological needs! This is the opposite of much of modern psychology's emphasis on "self-esteem" or "I'm OK, You're OK." Indeed, as Charles Colson says, the words of Jesus challenge one to the very core of existence, putting at risk one's whole reason for living.
R. C. Sproul points out that the question of origin of religion is really not a psychological one but an historical one. The truth of Christianity is not determined by how it could have started, but how it did start.
Which is the greater psychological crutch—Christianity or atheism? We submit that atheism and agnosticism are really the philosophies to be challenged. Is not atheism a psychological invention to get rid of moral obligation? Because of our egocentricity, God can appear as an awesome threat to us. Atheism and agnosticism want to cover that up by refuting God

I would have to say Christianity is a greater crutch due to the security that it provides.

[dolfe1]

Originally Posted by garyzilla

Christianity does indeed offer the purest route to personal fulfillment. Yet, Christianity, in particular, is filled with paradoxes and difficult demands. As Charles Colson asks, "If we were making up our own god, would we create one with such harsh demands for justice, righteousness, service and self-sacrifice as we find in the biblical texts?"
Jesus said: Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Pride is a sin. If you want to become rich, give away your money. If you truly want to be great, you must be a servant. He said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! And He said being persecuted in His name is a blessing. (Wow!)
According to Jesus, the rich are poor; the up are down; the down are up; the self-righteous are sinners; the sinners are forgiven. The last are first and the first are last.
This kind of talk is not what one would expect to draw throngs of people to meet their psychological needs! This is the opposite of much of modern psychology's emphasis on "self-esteem" or "I'm OK, You're OK." Indeed, as Charles Colson says, the words of Jesus challenge one to the very core of existence, putting at risk one's whole reason for living.
R. C. Sproul points out that the question of origin of religion is really not a psychological one but an historical one. The truth of Christianity is not determined by how it could have started, but how it did start.
Which is the greater psychological crutch—Christianity or atheism? We submit that atheism and agnosticism are really the philosophies to be challenged. Is not atheism a psychological invention to get rid of moral obligation? Because of our egocentricity, God can appear as an awesome threat to us. Atheism and agnosticism want to cover that up by refuting God

What moral obligation are you reffering to? I believe you can be atheist and still have morals.

[CyniQ]

It is true that atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. However, if you are an atheist, from where do you get your morality? Your values? If you do not believe in God, how do you determine what is right and wrong? It may seem easy to differeniate between right and wrong now. But at one point in human history it was necessary to say "Thou shalt not kill"

Originally Posted by dolfe1

What moral obligation are you reffering to? I believe you can be atheist and still have morals.

[dolfe1]

Originally Posted by CyniQ

It is true that atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive. However, if you are an atheist, from where do you get your morality? Your values? If you do not believe in God, how do you determine what is right and wrong? It may seem easy to differeniate between right and wrong now. But at one point in human history it was necessary to say "Thou shalt not kill"

It is possible to gain morals from religion without belief in God, though not likely. I would have to say an atheist's morals would root from the same place everyone elses morals originated from, the people who raised them. Was it not your parents who first taught you right and wrong.

[CyniQ]

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this sentence. Explain.

Originally Posted by dolfe1

It is possible to gain morals from religion without belief in God, though not likely.

Okay, your parents taught you right and wrong. But who taught them, and them, and so on, and so on. Somewhere down the line was the first guy who said that it was wrong to take another human life. The bible tells those who believe in it where these laws or values came from. If you don't believe in the bible or God. You still have little choice other than to accept that everything you likely believe about morality comes from the bible.

[dolfe1]

Originally Posted by CyniQ

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this sentence. Explain.

Okay, your parents taught you right and wrong. But who taught them, and them, and so on, and so on. Somewhere down the line was the first guy who said that it was wrong to take another human life. The bible tells those who believe in it where these laws or values came from. If you don't believe in the bible or God. You still have little choice other than to accept that everything you likely believe about morality comes from the bible.

Man came before the bible and not everyone has read the bible.

[CyniQ]

Originally Posted by dolfe1

Man came before the bible and not everyone has read the bible.

That's not your arguement is it? Sure man came before the bible. But that does not change the fact that everything you know about right and wrong comes from the bible. Just because people reject it NOW doesn't mean it was always that way, and doesn't change the impact it has had on mankind.

[garyzilla]

Originally Posted by dolfe1

Man came before the bible and not everyone has read the bible.

.....and God came before man

[CyniQ]

Originally Posted by garyzilla

.....and God came before man

That's a great point, and not to disregard it in any way. I was just trying to point out (unsuccessfully maybe) that even from a purely secular standpoint, the bible dictates right and wrong.

[dolfe1]

It is possible to gain morals from religion without belief in God, though not likely.

My point is that you don't necessarily need to believe in God or Jesus to adopt morals from the bible or whatever religious book you choose.

[dolfe1]

Originally Posted by garyzilla

.....and God came before man

agreed, now give your thoughts in my cloning thread.

[garyzilla]

Originally Posted by dolfe1

It is possible to gain morals from religion without belief in God, though not likely.

My point is that you don't necessarily need to believe in God or Jesus to adopt morals from the bible or whatever religious book you choose.

Are you nuts? You can adopt morals with out believeing God or the Bible. That is what the Bible is about! To not believe in God or Jesus is to deny the morals in the Bible!

[dolfe1]

Originally Posted by garyzilla

Are you nuts? You can adopt morals with out believeing God or the Bible. That is what the Bible is about! To not believe in God or Jesus is to deny the morals in the Bible!

Sorry buddy but this is not true. One can easily agree to love thy neighbor(gaining this moral from the bible) and not believe that Jesus is our savior.