Why has God allowed religion to be so tribal?

[Jason118]

There is so much solid teachings in religious dogma and so many warm and kind people who practice. Why has it all come to this, or was it ever thus?

I think the key is the interpretation of being born in Christ.

Surely human interpretation is irrelevant - isn't it God who decides who gets in? So asking other humans (however learned) is only going to give comfort during your life, not a guarantee of afterwards? Isn't it a bit like dungeons and dragons where the outcome is decided by the dungeon master and the roll of dice? Substitute the dungeon master for God and the roll of dice for human life, and basically it's the same thing.

It is God who decides but how we interpret the word of God is ever changing. The gospels were spread by word of mouth for a long time, things have been translated and retranslated, new circumstances and situations arose which couldn't have been conceived of 2000 years ago. There are a lot of ideas that aren't discussed in the bible, at least not fully, so we rely on senior members of individual religions to decide on the churches view. This is where the religions falter though as not everyone can agree. One Pope may say one thing but the next something different.

Chicken

There are a lot of ideas that aren't discussed in the Bible

I think who gets into heaven is covered pretty comprehensively.

Perhaps, but understandings change. You seem to think you know more than the Pope on the issue despite not even believing in any of it.

The Pope adopted the heretical position of Pelagianism in asserting that a good nonbeliever could get into heaven. Even the Pope finds embracing traditional Catholic teaching too much of a challenge at times.

Isn't it a good thing for the church to evolve?

Chicken

Something is either true or it isn't. If God is real, Heaven and Hell exist etc then I want to know exactly what the criteria are for entry. Not somebody's best guess.

Presumably God's rules don't change (if he is real). What you call 'evolving' I call moving the goalposts to be more acceptable to modern life.

Either the church of old was right and only true believers who embrace Jesus can get into Heaven, or the church now is right and you just have to be a good person. But they both can't be true. Somebody is/was lying.

I actually have more respect for the old school religious people who don't bend their ideas to suit modern sensibilities. They are still bonkers and wrong, but at least they have the courage of their convictions.

It has become less acceptable in society to be religionist, that is, to believe those of a particular religion are more pleasing to God - in just the same way that racist attitudes are no longer acceptable.

Society has become less tribal and caretakers of religious doctrine like the Pope have to adopt attitudes that reflect this new reality if their religion is to thrive.

The problem is that many religious texts crystallised out when tribalism was the norm.

The Bible is anti-Semitic in parts and negative about Pagans too. Eternal life, according to the Bible, is reserved for those who recognise Jesus as their divine saviour. In parts of the Quran there is a negative view of outsiders too. For example, somewhat ironically, it is said that Trinitarians - those who believe in the divinity of Jesus - are destined for hell. In other words, the belief that will get you into heaven according to Christianity is the very same belief that will guarantee you’re heading for hell in Islam!

Many modern-day Christians and Muslims are uncomfortable with the tribalism/religionism in their holy books. As a consequence there is a dichotomy between the beliefs found in ancient scripture and the views expressed by those who claim to be adherents.

One of the reasons the Sikh religion came into being was because there was a need for a spiritual system that encouraged religious tribes to live side by side in harmony. Sikhs don’t believe in evangelism. There is no need for it because they believe in an equal opportunities afterlife. In their view God doesn’t discriminate amongst people holding different beliefs. They are completely accepting of the older faiths of Christianity and Islam.

It seems to me that there is less tension between Sikhism and modern mores than is the case for Christianity and Islam.

I'm with chicken and the Pope.
My belief is after we die and get to meet God ,we will all fail to live up the standard to be good enough to get into heaven (we have all done wrong things even Mother Teresa). Luckily for us Jesus has already taken our penalties for all our wrong doings (God is just and will serve justice on all of us who have done wrong) however it is Jesus who actually receives the punishment not us. He has already done this for us when he was crucified.
We can choose (at the point of our judgement) whether to accept this gift or not.
Those who accept can go on to heaven. Those that choose not to are separated from God and cease to exist.
We know some people, even when actually face to face with God will still choose to turn from his offer of life (Satan was already in heaven and chose this option). Presumably this is very sad for God who loves us all despite our faults.

Thanks daffo, made me laugh

Daffodil, your first sentence has tickled my fancy!

I would say Christianity is not really tribal seeing as it is practiced by people across the world. It's declining in the west but growing at a rapid rate in countries like China.

The bible is not anti Semitic because it was written by Jews, the Old Testament is the Jewish Torah- one and the same and Jesus was a Jew.

I am a "religionists" as a previous poster has said- the reason being that religious pluralism- the idea that all religions have equal truth (or are equally false)- cannot be, as the teachings are in conflict. I cannot reasonably be said to be religious if I think all religions are true. only one can be true.

"Religion is people led. It’s down to men dictating about people should behave. It’s just another form of abuse and control."

So in light of this, who/what should be in control?
Or do you think there should be no control?
Who will make decisions for you, and society at large?

Religion is by people lead- bad
Politics is people lead- good?

do you think government is good and acts in the interest of the people? , do you really?

If there was no control we'd still be living in caves without any civilization- It's how society structures itself- there has to be something there.

Put any question into this board - why is religion tribal, what's heaven like, free will, yes or no? And the same posters come on every time, giving the same 'answer' - God doesn't exist, with a general dressing of running down people who believe otherwise. You'd have thought it would get boring.

Lucy
You're right of course to a degree. From my point of view it's to try and gain some understanding of how people can believe absolutely, and the more I engage, the more I learn. I wouldn't say I understand a great deal more, and I certainly would never want to offend anyone.

If there was no control we'd still be living in caves without any civilization I think we should give the caves a go again, it's not working out the way it is now. Seriously though. Smaller communities working together is the way forward IMHO. Yes, they'll be leaders but they won't be so cut off from who the rules/laws will effect.

i feel like what we're experiencing is society going backwards.
Right before a fall of a civilization the society usually becomes indulgent and decadent. Concerning itself with gratification and forgetting about how they got where they are, the roots and learning from the past- bad and good.

I really think we're going back in thinking all behaviours are ok, so long as they make us happy.

I'd like to ask an atheist;

What makes a society civilized?

Do they believe in "morals"?
If you don't how do you decide what's right or wrong?

I expect the answer to do be something like "we decide what's right at the time"

• so therefore you cannot say anything in history is wrong?

All the "evils" are humans doing what was right at the time in the absence on any true morality,

As an atheist (who dislikes the term) I'll answer (though only for me, not other athiests)

What makes a society civilized?
Whatever the majority in society agree makes them civilised

Do they believe in "morals"?
If you don't how do you decide what's right or wrong?
Not in the sense that anything is intrinsically right and wrong. It's down to society again. We already live in world that has different morality attached to the same action (if I shoot someone in the streets of London I'm a murderer, if I shoot them while I'm in uniform in a warzone I'm a hero). Even Christians choose to add provisions to God's commandment "Thou shalt not Kill"

Yes, backwards that sounds about right.

If you don't how do you decide what's right or wrong? The majority of people know right from wrong, religion isn't needed for that.

*provisos

Maybe God is not interventionist?

"What makes a society civilized?
Whatever the majority in society agree makes them civilised"

Not in the sense that anything is intrinsically right and wrong. It's down to society again.

Well this view is what I as a Christian do not believe. It's this that assumes no behaviour is bad and that anything can be justified, all cultural practices are equal.

So the canaaites in the bible sacrificing children to moloch is ok- we know this happened from archaeological evidence.

Hitler, Stalin, mao all ok because society at large agreed or didn't speak up.

Practices such as sati burning widows on their husbands funeral pyre are all ok so long as everyone agrees.

I just don't agree. This kind of thinking means we never have any grounds to stand up for what is right- because there is no "right"?

But child sacrifice was ok for some cultures (not only ok but good)

Society at large doesn't agree with Hitler and Stalin etc.

You absolutely have a ground to stand up for what you think is right, but you need numbers on your side for society to agree.