Regardless of whether any particular religion is true, the adherents to that religion seems to comprise a separate culture. Is organized religion more about the maintance of a culture than about worship?

Organized religion is a way for people to monopolize their understanding of God and the mysteries, and then make money out of that.

Is organized religion more about the maintance of a culture than about worship?
There are the tribal religions for which you need to be a member of that tribe to participate in their sacred mysteries, and then there are global religions which allow anyone of any culture to join, particular examples are Christianity, Islam and Buddhism (I know Buddhism is more philosophy, but meh).

I don't think that religion is more about culture, it just happens that many religions have the same borders, because they don't suit members of other cultures.

Doesn't religion foster an association following similar rules and philosophies, which naturally leads to an indentity of the members of that association which we can label as culture? Aren't a lot of faiths more interested in preserving their culture, as opposed to keeping the faith? Doesn't thinking of a church as a culture give insight into the actions of that church?

I see it as a way for the ruling elite to pit the pathetic, stupid, lower classes against each other and forget how they are getting fucked by the ruling elite.

You know the same (human) story since someone wrote down what's been going on(history).

True, religion can be used to support a power structure, but it also provides a sense of identity.

Doesn't thinking of a church as a culture give insight into the actions of that church?
Maybe for you. Culture is a lot more than particular religious beliefs.
Religion can be a part of culture and culture may be a part of religion.

Yeah an identity of bullshit - that conflicts with another identity of bullshit. People forget how much they share in common, the more bullshit they attach themselves to.

Samething nationalism, samething regionalism , ad nausalism.

A culture cannot subsist on the basis of religion alone -but must be broader? Says who? Why can't a person be part of more than one culture - say the American culture and a religious culture?

A culture cannot subsist on the basis of religion alone -but must be broader? Says who?
Because culture IS more than religion. Check your definitions.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

I just checked the definition. Did you? One of your sites defines culture as "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious or social group". Note the word "religious" in the definition. Change your mind?

No, culture is how people live based on their history, society, aesthetics, environment, beliefs, laws, favourite past times, tradition, arts, etc.
Read the wiki article, it's more elaborate than the dry webster definition.

That would be one culture, like American culture. However, there are other cultures also present in the United States besides American culture. One of those is a vast array of religious cultures.

Regardless of whether any particular religion is true, the adherents to that religion seems to comprise a separate culture. Is organized religion more about the maintance of a culture than about worship?

Pretty much.

If religion is more about the maintance of a culture than about worship, why focus your attack on the tenants of belief instead of the organization itself?

Because then maybe people will feel like questioning the whole premise of their culture.

So you say it is more effective to attack the tenants of belief than the culture itself? Why would attacking the by-laws of a civic association be more effective than attacking the members?

Because I couldn't care less if people have a Christmas tree, it's the movement to alter government and society based on the authority of a holy book that is more troubling. Cultures by themselves can get along, intermingle, evolve...

But isn't governement and society the American culture? Aren't you really defending one culture over another?

I guess you could argue that having a secular form of government is part of American culture, even though some would deny it.

I see the biggest clash between Christianity and Islam as being a clash of CLIMATE.

Islam is in general the more advanced religion (it follows the trend towards monotheism by proposing one god instead of a trinity; it follows the trend away from sorcerers by rejecting priesthood), and so it was able to largely replace Christianity in the Middle East.

However, Islam has one big disadvantage: it is not seasonal. The Islamic year of twelve lunar months may be OK in the tropics and sub-tropics, where it does not matter so much that its festivals gradually regress through the (natural or solar) year.

Christianity wins out in temperate lands, with their more intense annual climatic cycle, because its great festivals coincide with the natural calendar. In northerly climes, there is a special need to celebrate the darkest days of the year: Christmas serves this need (as did Pagan festivals before it). An Islamic year of 354 days is at a severe disadvantage.

If only the Angel Gabriel had kept whispering "365" . . .

I bet some of you never thought of that before :) !

I see religion as propaganda and ingenius method of brainwashing of those that are clueless in there searching for a deeper meaning in life.

Clash of culture? Perhaps, but I say clash of ego and 'control' Yes, perhaps control is the keyword.

I see the biggest clash between Christianity and Islam as being a clash of CLIMATE.

Islam is in general the more advanced religion (it follows the trend towards monotheism by proposing one god instead of a trinity; it follows the trend away from sorcerers by rejecting priesthood), and so it was able to largely replace Christianity in the Middle East.

However, Islam has one big disadvantage: it is not seasonal. The Islamic year of twelve lunar months may be OK in the tropics and sub-tropics, where it does not matter so much that its festivals gradually regress through the (natural or solar) year.

Christianity wins out in temperate lands, with their more intense annual climatic cycle, because its great festivals coincide with the natural calendar. In northerly climes, there is a special need to celebrate the darkest days of the year: Christmas serves this need (as did Pagan festivals before it). An Islamic year of 354 days is at a severe disadvantage.

If only the Angel Gabriel had kept whispering "365" . . .

I bet some of you never thought of that before :) !

You do know that the Catholics adopted those pagan seasonal rituals specifically to court new followers? You couldn't ask people to give up Christmas for Catholicism!

The common man regaurds religions beliefs as fact. The wise man regaurds religion as contradiction to logic. The ruler regaurds religion as a useful tool.

At this point in time, religion is about to cause World War III

ISLAM: Claims they know of the "one and only true god"

CHRISTIANITY: Claims exactly the same thing

MORMONS: Exactly the same

JEHOVAHS WITNESSES: Exactly the same

THE CULT OF SCIENTOLOGY: EXACTLY THE SAME

MOST CULTS IN EXISTENCE: EXACTLY THE SAME AS ALL OF THEE ABOVE

Do away with religion, it is of no use but for bloodshed and disagreement. I propose that if there is a god, he hates all religious sects who try to portray "him" in any way shape or form.

You do know that the Catholics adopted those pagan seasonal rituals specifically to court new followers? You couldn't ask people to give up Christmas for Catholicism!
Absolutely . . . the tough thing was suppressing the Pagan fertility festivals, but even they found some sort of outlet in Mardi Gras!

In Latvia Christmas is still called Winter Celebrations (Ziemassvētki) and it has a lot of paganic elements in it. Latvia got converted to Christianity relatively recently.

Religion is part of culture and yes, religious practices are more about culture than about worship (for most). Organized religion is about being part of a group and worshiping the way that group worships. The group membership may or may not transcend country borders, may or may not overlap with membership in other groups. Organized religious groups also have their own art, their own traditions, their own societal hierarchy, and so on. Whether you choose to be part of that culture or not is a different matter, don't bring it in here.

Avatar, Christianity was brought to the Baltics a long, long time ago but it was done halfheartedly. Whoever conquered the Baltics never cared much to integrate them into the culture of the conquering people; for that reason, Christianity never really settled in as deeply as in other places and the cultural identity of the Baltics remained intact.

P.S. "the more advanced religion" <--- ROFL!!!!

Avatar, Christianity was brought to the Baltics a long, long time ago but it was done halfheartedly. Whoever conquered the Baltics never cared much to integrate them into the culture of the conquering people; for that reason, Christianity never really settled in as deeply as in other places and the cultural identity of the Baltics remained intact.
That's what I meant. I know when christianity was introduced here. :)
Bible itself was translated from Latin into Latvian only in the second half of the 18th century I think. Some other religious texts in the second half of the 16th.

Shouldn't we be seperating culture from religion? It is possible to belong to the same culture but have different religions or no religion and vice versa. Religion is a philosophy and culture is a set of 'ways' usually geographically based. I'm not saying that religion or other influences cannot have an impact upon a culture but the two are not the same.

In the ancient days humans didn't know their own nature.

All their creativity has been aimed to something that is 'higher' than them.
All creation was dedicated to beings inconceivable to them, who were responsible for their and creation of all other things.

Human creation could be considered only as an imitation of creation that has been done by omnipotent deities.
Human belief is one of important factors that caused creativity. Humans used creation not to satisfied themselves or their own vanity.
Creation was the tool of repressing the fear of unknown and satisfying the higher beings.

Humans created figures to show their worship, psalms and chants to praise supreme and intangible power, breathtaking edifices to be closer to their deity.

Small frightened creatures started to believe and after that they started to create to defeat their fear and to propitiate deities.
In that unawareness they created magnificent monuments which are important part of human culture.

So, it's hard to separate religion and culture, when some of the most impressive human accomplishments have religious fundament.

In the ancient days humans didn't know their own nature.
Whereas now we know? I'm skeptical. We still don't know a lot.

All their creativity has been aimed to something that is 'higher' than them.
Doesn't fully apply to ancient Egyptians, particularly in the intermediate period and after. Every deceased person which was virtuous in life according to the holy ethics after death was born to eternity and within him or her held the power of all the gods, became one with them.

some of the most impressive human accomplishments have religious fundament.

For example?

So, it's hard to separate religion and culture, when some of the most impressive human accomplishments have religious fundament.As well as our most impressive atrocities. The obliteration of the Egyptian, Inca and Aztec civilizations--three of only six independently developed civilizations on the entire planet--are the three most unforgivable "sins" ever committed by human beings. It is indeed difficult to separate religion from culture, although it's worth the effort to try.

For example?

I admit the Cathedrals and frescoes are nice.

Whereas now we know? I'm skeptical. We still don't know a lot.
Starting surmise:
Human woke up with memory loss. Heavy rain just started to fall all around his small shelter. It was cold and poor creature felt something flows through his body making him even smaller. As he stooped to the ground more and more, his eyes caught green horizon through the entrance, covered with dense rain. He tried to rear and sat forth, but suddenly, lightning stroke the nearby tree setting up the horrific scene.
Creature covered ears to protect the following rumble to enter his head.
With eyes and mouth wide opened, creature moaned: "Father... What have I done?"

Picking one branch on fire came later. Fear came first. Accompanied with superstition who later evolved in complex system of belief.

But, yes, we still don't know a lot. :)


Doesn't fully apply to ancient Egyptians, particularly in the intermediate period and after. Every deceased person which was virtuous in life according to the holy ethics after death was born to eternity and within him or her held the power of all the gods, became one with them.
Agree. Egyptians were one of the rare civilizations who understood dynamics of the human body, in this and in an afterlife. Not fully of course, let's say in forensics way, but fair enough for their needs.
Most of the people in the past had developed fear of the death and dead human body caused same repugnance.
There was no: Let's open it to see what's in there curiosity in the early days.
Dead body was something sacred, forbidden or simply object of fear... A Taboo.

What is more interesting, so called 'undeveloped' civilizations had more understanding for our human nature and how body works, than 'Western' civilizations.



For example?


I admit the Cathedrals and frescoes are nice.
spidergoat gave the answer... Buildings (mosques, churches, temples,...), songs and other parts of spiritual cultures, material traces like books,...
We all have pagan roots... Worshipping of anima, spirits of our ancestors, Pantheons of different deities,...
That was also a religion.

Also, first printed book was not "De Re Aedificatoria", although it could be.


As well as our most impressive atrocities. The obliteration of the Egyptian, Inca and Aztec civilizations--three of only six independently developed civilizations on the entire planet--are the three most unforgivable "sins" ever committed by human beings. It is indeed difficult to separate religion from culture, although it's worth the effort to try.
This is good example. Building up its own heritage and civilization has been often based on ruining another.
This is example how one religion has been involved in destroying of impressive civilizations and achievements.

And human lives, which is more important.

This is good example. Building up its own heritage and civilization has been often based on ruining another. This is example how one religion has been involved in destroying of impressive civilizations and achievements.Two religions. The Muslims destroyed Egypt and the Christians took care of the New World.
And human lives, which is more important.Individual human lives are very important to the individual humans and their families, but less so to more distant members of their communities and even less to outsiders. To humanity as a whole, the deaths of any arbitrarily selected million people is only a statistic, roughly the number who die every single day of causes other than violence, a process most of us never think about except on the day when it includes one of our loved ones or when we start to glimpse our own day looming. But the destruction of an entire civilization is a loss that all of humanity feels forever, if not consciously.

How much music, literature and other art, what rich philosophy, how many wonderful kinds of food, what amazing technologies will never exist because the Egyptian, Aztec or Inca civilization that bore the foundation of ideas and motifs to launch it was exterminated? This is a far greater loss to all of us than the loss of life, great as it was.

[QUOTE=Plazma Inferno!;14627
spidergoat gave the answer... Buildings (mosques, churches, temples,...), songs and other parts of spiritual cultures, material traces like books,...
QUOTE]

That's some impressive record.:rolleyes:

How much music, literature and other art, what rich philosophy, how many wonderful kinds of food, what amazing technologies will never exist because the Egyptian, Aztec or Inca civilization that bore the foundation of ideas and motifs to launch it was exterminated? This is a far greater loss to all of us than the loss of life, great as it was.

Well, with three more patriarchal cultures removed it must make at least the anarcho-primativists happy. Right? :D