Here's a question I debated ferociously with my sophomore year roommate, and we never really settled it. I guess you never can. But anyway, do you feel that religion as an instituion has done more good or more harm over the centuries? I'm not talking about the founders of the religions necessarily, nor am I necessarily talking about the sacred texts, but the institutions. Your thoughts?

"I have no problem with Christ, just with some of his followers"
Gandhi

My first problem with my relgion that I was rasied on, Catholisim, was not so much the relgion, as it was the church. Over the history, the most terrible things have been done in the name of relgion, though it is silly to fault the founders (most of the time that is). More people where killed in the name of Jesus, the prince of peace, than any other person in history, including the likes of Hitler, but blame Jesus? No, blame the actual physical entity that sactioned these actions, the relgious institution.

Now, not all institutions are bad, mind that, but many are, and a few have stood out throughout history.

I love that quote :)

I agree that organized religions do some remarkably stupid and morally reprehensible things. They're human institutions, and are run by people, thus, they're plagued by the same problems as governments. Corrupt individuals can easily use them to their personal advantage. Why did the church condone the crusades? I doubt sincerely that it was entirely to reclaim the holy land, the intention behind it was as much about spreading the churches influence and acquiring wealth.

Not to mention the great deal of good that has come out of organized religions. For example orders like the fransicians and catholic workers do a great deal of good and provide much needed relief and services to people who are materially poor.

And it's been widely written about how the Irish Monks saved countless works of literature during the dark ages.

Like an human institution, they do things wrong, but they also do good.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water metaphorically speaking.

So deltasix seems to think more harm than good.

Boru, you would say more good than harm?

Aye, I would indeed say they do more good than harm.

I think that historically, overall, institutions have done more harm than good. They have been so oft corrupted and people have so oft used them for things other than what I belive the spirt (and often the word) of the relgion intends. This does more harm than good both to the people of the religion and to the reputation of the religon.

As has been pointed out, many horrible acts have been committed in the name of religion, often at the bidding of religious institutions. I would argue, however, that so often religion was only used as an excuse -- a tool of the ruling elite (which in this case was often the Church), and that if religious organizations had not existed, some other excuse would have been found to commit equally atrocious acts. Although on the surface there are horrible acts committed by religious institutions, there have been many extraordinarily good acts done by religious institutions. As a Christian myself, I believe that the sheer number of people whose souls have been saved by religious institutions, and who have been given hope and sustinence when they had nothing to live for (or they were not even capable of survival) outweighs the evils that may have been committed by corrupt religious institutions. There are countless numbers of hospitals and charities organized by religious institutions. Countless numbers of people are living fuller, better lives because of religious institutions. I would say that the good outweighs the bad.

I feel that the good and bad are both equally weighted. kinda odd coming from a devout lutheran. i see people killing others for holy wars such as the crusades and extremists today. death is never good, and it is by far the worst thing another human could do. in churches and religious groups i see good though, they donate to the homeless and work for peace. i suppose thats why i feel that they are neutral. without good you cannot have bad, you cannot have bad religious institutions without the good.

I think religious institutions are inherently flawed based on human nature. As any group of people get larger the intelligence of said group will drop. There are some exceptions though but they are few and far between.

The institutionalization of religion seems to have been inevitable, no matter what the religion. Do you all agree with this?

Another question. Whether it was inevitable/necessary back in its inception, is it necessary to have religious institutions now?

I read an interesting essay my junior year of college entitled
"How Pelagian was Pelagius"

It was an examination of Pelagius, a man deemed to be a heretic by the early church, but his movement wasn't called a heresy. The idea of the article was that his beliefs weren't heretical in and of themselves, but that his followers created of them a sense of orthodoxy that even he might not have fit.

I found it an interesting discussion and began to wonder how orthodox are the founders of religious movements after a generation or so.

For example, Jesus? would he really fit nicely into any one of the numerous christian denominations? My guess would be probably not.


In short, I would agree with you statement Psycholopher, that the institutionalization of relgions is inevitable, but ironic.

I think institutionalized relgions are nice in that they provide a label. I think that's where a great deal of it comes from. For example if someone tells me they're an evangelical christian I can assume, with adequate certainity, a few things about what they believe, likewise, when I tell them I'm a catholic, they can do the same with me... but then again how orthodox are any of us?

if for no other reason than to spare us numerous discussions on personal beliefs religious institutions still have a role in todays society. They also provide a common gathering point for the creation of agencies to allieviate suffering, if that's that particulary religions thing.

Do you think the good of the label outweighs the evil it does in ossifying people's beliefs so that they don't examine them? I know many Catholics for whom it is a nice convenience to be able to say, "Yeah I'm Catholic" because it spares them the agony of having to face questions for themselves.

That depends. From a christian stand point if we're trully understanding of Christ's teachings and accepting of them, there's no reason such a label should "ossify" a persons believes. Granted yes, I get frustrated with my Catholic friends who just recite what their parents or catechism teacher taught them without examining it and owning that "belief" I feel true faith is faith lived, or faith put into action. In otherwords, walk the walk.

Well, if we're truly understanding of Christ's teachings and accepting of them, then does the label of being affiliated with a religious institution even matter? How does it help? Can't we be truly understanding of those teachings without belonging to a particular institution?

As a whole? Probably. Religion itself I find has been helpful to mankind, especially if life isn't particularly good at the time. The institutions, however, seem to have garnered a bit of a mob mentallity, especially if it's one main religion in one secluded area. People don't/didn't get much opposition, so the very few who objected got burned/lynched/harrassed. Now that there is a lot more diversity of religion in a single area, this doesn't seem to happen as much.

Not that religious institutions haven't had some good effects. A lot of social reforms were brought on by church organised protests, and a lot of people in one place who believe the same thing can be very comforting.

Again, can't someone walk the walk without belonging to a religious institution?

I would say yes, but then again, I think someone can "Walk the walk" of actions without having relgion at all, so my answer might be a bit bias.

Forgive me if I misread, but it sounds as if you're saying that Christianity as a religious institution sanctions killing. Actually, it condemns it, and I know that Christians killed in the name of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit (i.e. crusades) but Christ never said, "Alright, to get in the kingdom of Heaven you have to follow me and kill a couple of unbelievers." And the religion of Christianity also never EVER allows killing beyond self-defense. You can't blame a religion for the sins of the followers.

Anyway, as for my stand on more or less harm, as much as I wish it wasn't so, there've been too many instances and I think it's done much more harm then good.

Oh trust me, I know a good deal on Christianity.

What I am saying is that many times, the Chuch condons killing. Its the whole point of this topic here, the difference between the relgious instititutions and the teachings themseleves.

If you want to argue that the church has never given the ok to kill, you'd be pretty wrong there. I didn't say a thing about Christianity giving the right to kill (which actually, if you look at the difference between killing and murder, there are some who can agrue that it does give the right to kill) but the relious institutions do. They, at least in my point of view, do more harm than good.

The Righteousness of modern day christians has much to be questioned, and therefore your point of souls being saved. Granted to other points of hospitals, but lets look at the Medieval hospitals ran by Monks and Nuns, they were abysmal and did little to help, even if that was all they could do, this certainly doesnt balance out the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church and indeed the Protestant and Anglican.

The religious charities such as CAFOD and the Red Cross and the Samaritans Purse aim their operations towards Christians... i.e on the Heaven & Earth show he Archbishop of Cantebury went to see Sudanese Christians

To the original point however, Religious Institutions are straight at the source of most atrocities ever committed, the Crusades being the most used example, and recently, the Iraq War when George Bush blamed his faith for the invasion calling it again, aCrusade. One more thing on the Crusades, children were sent on them. Although we are victimizing the Churches here arent we? but I'm not aware that any other religion has such an institution that has influenced so much in the years it has existed.

Another point that Christianity doesnt condone killing- have you ever heard the quote that "you shall not suffer a witch to live"? (I cant remember the exact reference and isnt a strong argument but it is there somewhere..

Over all in my opinion I think religious insitutions divide more humanity than unify it. I think churches are more aptly called businesses. Most who supposedly minister to the poor are paid by the government for the services they offer. They are not acts of giving nor do they themselves administer the services. They hire others. They are even paid for their prayers. I see a lack of selfless acts from those preaching to others to do so.

Can you explain this further?

Yea, I suppose you are right there. Churches don't always convey the correct view, and considering none of us know exactly what that is, it's hard to tell. But it's true that some churches say it's ok to kill, and yes give the "ok" to kill.

As for Christianity condoning it, it says right there in the reading of the ten commandments "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" I don't understand how that could be twisted either way. But they do twist it, to a certain extent. And I agree that churches, cynagogues, monestaries, and any other sort of religious institution can often do more harm then good.

It actually reads "Thou shall not murder." Murder is different than kill. But then again, the arguement for that is made by people I don't normally agree with. Some of the older members here know a fellow named "Dice."

I suppose kill and murder are different, but it's all about intentions. Do you really mean to cold-bloodedly murder someone? Or are you killing in self-defense? Only the person and God know the true answer to that, and you can argue all you want, if you really mean to murder someone for no cause at all, it's a sin and there's no condoning it.

I work for nuns who take a vow of hospitality to the aged. They are not the only order to so there are others. They run nursing homes. They are accredited with taking in the poor & housing them. They collect money through the mail and through the churches. The donations pay for prayers which the nuns do everyday for about an hour. It pays for the nuns salaries and expansion of the order & the church. The residents in the home pay for the services they receive (medical, housing, etc.) through the sale of their homes and furniture, through their insurance including medicare & medicaid. Nurses, CNA's, professional staff, are hired to do the care paid for the residents although the checks are from the order's home. Only 2 or 3 of the nuns have professional training and they hold the higher administrative supervisor positions.

When I talk to others about the residence they picture they have is that the nuns visit, talk to, take part in the care of these residents, especially those who have no family to do so. That they help people who have been poor all their lives to end their days in physical and spiritual comfort. Besides the 2 or 3 supervisors, 2 or 3 more will help to feed at meals. Of these, one helps get a resident up in the morning, who needs help in set up and cuing to accomplish the tasks. Staff is informed daily if these nuns will be doing these tasks because they don't do them daily. The nun's don't even offer to bring residents in wheelchairs into the chapel for the daily mass. They walk into the chapel and take a seat. They may or may not even say hello to the residents they pass. When a resident is dying the nuns used to sit in vigil so no one would die alone if family could not stay. Staff is confused because some residents seem to get this while others don't. There's a long waiting list to enter the home and its very expensive. The majority of the residents are family of or worked for the church. A few were volunteers for at least 10 years to the home. Its obvious from talking to the residents that many were upper middle class for the majority of their lives & were of a class than most of the staff. Their monies were obviously transferred before coming to the home as they now are on medicaid & medicare. There are 2 residents who seemingly don't fit this picture but have friends who with close connections to the church. There should more if they taking in the poor as they claim. Those poor are paying their way with government monies.

As novices those who will become nuns spend about two or three weeks involved with the residents. They will get up a resident in the morning during this period, have bible study with them, help feed, even assist with toileting. Staff wonders why since they don't do this once they become nuns.

The nuns live in the same heated building, their food is cooked in the same kitchen,
they use the same water supply as the residents, the same electricity as the residents. I don't know if they pay separate for these from the residents when the bills come in but it doesn't appear so. If anything in this respect the residents seemingly support the nuns.

I have a friend who works in a home run by another order & the situation is much the same.

I see no selfless acts being done. I read that Sister Theresa's Calcutta order does very little also in the way of selfless acts. I read about the rich lifestyles of many christian preacher's as they keep telling others to give who have far less. I see far too much hypocrisy. Jesus owned nothing yet the heads of churches continue to dine off gold plates. There's something very wrong with this picture. I don't remember Jesus collecting money. I don't believe a church is necessary to find God. If he exists he doesn't need a building.

Amen.

People who are trialed enough to know there worth and the worth of what they have are the ones who have been through hard times. They're the people who (if they ever get alot of money) would give it to people who need it instead of Churches who don't. God doesn't need a church or temple. It says in the Bible to worship with everything you do, not worship me in a church alone. Frankly, if I played some worship songs on my guitar, then read my Bible and thought about it for an hour or so, I'd have my own service.

The point remains that the church asks for money, and at no point does it ever actually BENEFIT the givers who are suffering the metaphorical "woman who dropped a penny in the offering plate."

With all due respect,
~~~Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel

Okay, this makes sense. I thought you were implying that the government directly paid religious institutions, which would not be accurate.

Another good point. There are definitely people who belong to religious institutions who profit off of the poor. It can be agreed that this is generally detrimental to society.

Your argument with the nuns example seems to have a two-fold thrust: 1. The nuns don't actually do anything, 2. The nuns aren't doing this out of selflessness--they're paid.

I understand your first point. But your second point doesn't necessarily address the potential beneficence of religious institutions. Just because an institution profits in some way from the work it performs doesn't undermine the good that it does do. Even if a religious institution profits off of operating a school or a hospital or a soup kitchen--it's still benefiting society.

To clarify, do you feel a religious institution does harm to society because it profits off of the work it does? Or rather, do you feel that religious institutions profit, without doing actual good work?

Do I not have the right to my religious beliefs? I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, of course, but you still must admit that from my point of view that's a subtantial amount of good that's been done. And it's hardly as if I'm justifying holy wars and the like for the sake of conversion -- such an idea goes blatantly against my theology.

As I already said, religion is used as a justification for terrible evils, but if religious institutions didn't exist, something else would be used. George Bush claims God told him to go to Iraq. Alright. My church (Mennonite) has made a formal condemnation of the war in Iraq. Not all Christians are Bible-thumping warmongerers.

That's a completely different subject; the Old Testament quite clearly condones killing under numerous circumstances, but I (and other Christians) believe that Jesus did away with the physical warfare that God commanded in the Old Testament. I'd rather not get any more into that in this thread, but suffice to say we are not under Old Testament law and the fact that, for example, the death penalty was used in Israelite society does not make it moral for Christians today.

What you say, Nevin, might be true and all, but I'd dare to say that your church, the Mennonites, do not speak for the majority of the people who belong to the Christian Church. How large is your sect anyways?

But yeah, throughout history, despite the teachings of relgion or whatnot (which seems to me to be the point of this thread) I'd still hold that overall, the Church has done more ill than it has done good. The problem, Nevin, while you might cite the actually teachings, ideals, and your personal philosophy on it, what you believe doesn't hold over into the the greater actions of the Church.

The Mennonite church is large enough to have an affect in society.

Also, there are MANY non-christians who do believe in the war in Iraq. There are also quite a few christians who don't (by proof of the stats that over 90% of americans claim christianity as their beliefs, and yet the polls of only 40% supporting the war). Through those numbers, it isn't a "religious" belief, but a personal conviction. I know of MANY (which I personally don't agree with) christians who believe that abortion is accepted in the case of rape or incest. TO me, that goes totally against what the bible says. HENCE, referring back to personal conviction. Are all Muslims in support of Al quida and the acts on 9/11? Is that institution of beliefs also in harm of society? Or is it the leaders that convince the followers that their conviction is the RIGHT way? How many muslim stood up and said "Please, don't think all muslims believe this" In reference to something that was already mentioned. It is HUMANs that are here now. It is humans that run the churches in the name of God. Do all humans have error? Yes. until we leave this planet, it will be this way. What about the kids in Alabama, and set fire to the churches. Did those churches deserve it, because they are an institution, and as some have stated have not done anything worthy to exist? No, that building brought alot of children in from broken homes, brought alot of lonely woman to Christ, have eliminated alot of problems from the WORLD in a whole, from MANY of their members lives. It is like the movie Pay It Forward.

with that said, there are MANY homeless who are living today, because of the church shelter they live in. There are many battered woman who are alive today because of the shelter they live in. NOW, is their circumstance the part that needs addressing? YES. Not those who help. Where would these people be, if there was no institution? Where would the babies be, that were left on a churches step, by a 15yr old child?

Let's try this perspective, what good can be done if there was no religious institutions? George Bush believes in God, and would still have sent us to Iraq, whether there was a building there or not. OR, do you think that religion in a whole (meaning atheists, jews, muslims, pagans) have done NOTHING for this country? Because I know, as being a christian, that from the bible it states there were synagogues and churches. So to ask me to believe in GOd and the word that he sent us. But to not believe or practice what is in it, is impossible.

Should there be no military, because there are soldiers who have abused their privileges?

I dare to say that they are, in themselves, not a reflection on the larger churches. According to wikipeida (yeah, I just looked it up), there are somthing like 1 million mennonites worldwide, which is what, a half a percent of the actually "christian" peoples?

As for a lot of what you've said, I agree. I agree with the fact that the church has been a driving force behind many good things, homeless shelters, charities, etc. They've even tried (in their own ways) to bring about good disipline and the like.

Thats nice, but that doesn't wash the blood from the relgious institution's hands. Not at the hands of relgion itself, merely at the hands of many institutions that claim to teach that relgion.

Furthermore, upon the issue of "where would they be," I think the answer is pretty simple. There is no need for an institution to care for the sick and whatnot, if people would actually take the relgion's teachings on peace and goodwill to heart. Or live moral lives, as put forth but some philosophers.

So then you are stated that all those who have something bad happen to them, have it happen because they didn't live a "moral" life?

Also, I stated that there were enough of them to have an impact. Especially when the Mennonites are still holding true to MANY of the conservative ways, more then the Methodists and other more "liberal" churches. Also, enough impact that they still exist. Most are congregated together, hence living them to a smaller community. But still, enough to impact desicions made.

No, I don't think I ever stated that. I said that the church itself is not needed to live a moral life through the teachings of christianity, at least how I interpt it. Then again, I have alot of crazy thoughts about living moral lives....

As for your other statement, I guess I'm just unfamliar with the impact of them. Prehaps that would be a nice topic for you to make up :rolleyes:

Actually, all though we can all live and pray to God on our own. GOD created the church for a reason. Jesus went to the temple as a child to pray to his Father (jesus being a jew). Jesus also yelled at the rabbis for spreading false teachings, and also when they allowed the market into the church. He didn't yell at them for the "institution" of the church. It was the sanctitee of the church. As then, there was human error, as there is today. God wants us to have a congregation of sisters and brothers in Christ for accountabilty. If we don't at some point, we will fall away from him, being the humans that we are.

I'd say with genocide and wars commited in the name of relgion via the Church we have already "fallen" from the teachings of any God.

We fell away from God the moment the apple was biten. What about God flooding the entire earth? He took all claim of that. He didn't just burn down churches, he killed ALL, church goers and non church goers

I guess that wasn't very beneficial to society :lol:

I'm sorry that probably wasn't funny. Except maybe to Noah.

In all seriousness...

Well, we seem to do a pretty good job falling away from God even with an institution--even with that congregation.

To Marx, the institution of the Catholic Church actively oppressed truth and power, and sucked up the material resources that the people provided in order to build cathedrals and make cardinals and popes rich. Not something that God would have intended, I imagine.

To him (and to many) "institutionalizing" a religion causes more harm than good.

but God didn't intend in Eve taken a bite of the apple. And he still instructed the jews to build temples and have Rabbi's (human beings of sin) to perform the Sabbath, and carry the ark. There was human error even then. But God never did away, or shunned the church as an institution. Paul spoke about the churches, to correct MANY of the sins they were committing. but NEver did he say, "there will be no more". This is of course, just touching on Christianity. If there should be no more churches, then you are also speaking for the Muslims, Jews, and all other religions that have a meeting place. THis can't only have one focus on one religion. When it is stated there should be no religious institutions, because nothing good has come from them. You are also referring to other religions besides christianity, right?

Right.

What you say makes sense within a religious context. But can you imagine being someone who is not religious at all, taking a look at history--do you think that person would see more harm or more good done by religious institutions as a whole?