What is the purpose of Religion?

[Dante]

The topic states the question. Now, for those of you still thinking I'm not being very specific about this, to clarify:

Should religions stay true to their original conepts, ideals and purposes? After all, that was why they were formed in the first place. Why abandon the old when it has so much in common with the new?Stay true to the first truth, and resist the evils of modern-day life.

But then again, these principles could be ancient and outdated. Why should a rule written by a batty old man on a piece of sheep two thousand years ago effect what we should eat/marry/do? The archaic dogma of many churches is thousands of years old, what possible connection could it have to what we do now?

On the other hand, religion is supposed to be timeless because each of them claims to be the truth. So the original truths are still true today? Or is everything relative; so that the original truths are now outdated?

It's all about survival. Religions which have adapted to their situation have, like political systems, survived. Those that have not have either been destroyed or severely reduced.

To sum up: What is the purpose of religion? To remind people of the truth as given to us long ago, to stand by their beliefs; or to adapt in a changing society to provide what they can wherever they can in a modern way?

Kind of ironic that this question comes from someone who doesn't believe in a set religion, isn't it? ;)

[Davidu]

Well, any religion's purpose is to explain everithing through their dogma. Also, any religion must provide comfost to their people, in any kind of environement, or situation.

That is the main purpose. From my point of view.

[Acriku]

The purpose of religion...Hmm...the purpose probably added cumulatively from time era to time era. In the beginning of our species, to explain our surroundings. Then later, to answer questions of why we got here, how we got here. Even later, to exploit people politically and militarily. Even later, to guide us through a moral life for a greater reward. Nowadays, all of these things and more. But slowly, the purposes of religion will be replaced by other modern, and more practical methods. Leaving little room for religion to survive and grow.

[DukeLeto]

The original purpose of religion was for people to explain away what they cannot understand. "Why does it rain? God. Why is the sky blue? God." And so on.

Of course, now that we can explain these things scientifically, it's just evolved into a nice way for a few rich, powerhungry people to gain absoloute control over hordes of mindless followers.

[Dante]

A bit like celebrities...

[Navaros]

the purpose of Religion is so mankind can do what God wants on this Earth so as He doesn't have to cast them into Hell when they die.

God has to obey His own Rules, otherwise He'd be a hypocrite. the purpose is Religion is to educate people about God's Rules and ensure they are followed so as people do not get cast into Hell for disobeying those Rules.

about Religion changing: any religion that changes is no Religion at all. it's a farce. God is unchanging. He is Perfect. Therefore, He can not change. If he changed, He would not be perfect or neither would His Holy Books.

most "religions" change because they do not exist to do God's Will, but simply as businesses that profit from being popular, just as any other business. those who attend such institutions which pervert God's Word by "changing with the times" are doing nothing other than deluding themselves into a false sense of security and morality. but do not be deceived: believing lies told by those claiming to be religious, just because they work at a Church or Temple etc. is *NOT* going to do you any good. if you disobey God, you are still evil and *WILL* be cast into Hell! anything you are told to be "okay" which God's Books say is *not* okay - none of that will *ever* be okay with God and His opinion is the only one you'll care about when the time comes to cast you into Hell.

[nemafakei]

Religious organisations so often end up diverting focus from the worhip of the deity itself (or themselves), and on the hierarchy and the traditions. Organisations cannot truly preach the spiritual part of religion, but, be they religious or not, can teach the morals that accompany. But what morals to choose, that is

Remember also that areligion which changes may not be deviating from the 'truth', but getting closer. Humans in past times may have been incapable of understanding or amking a transition to 'God's ideal', so less the deity may have chosen less radical changes to encourage first, then implement other changes late on.

Of course this assumes something akin to Edric's position on God and free will.

[Edric O]

There is no one-size-fits-all "purpose of religion". Each religion is unique, and each was created for different reasons and with different purposes in mind.

Regarding change, it is very important to distinguish between changes of form and changes of content. Changes of form are natural and even necessary. There is no reason to keep the exact same rituals for all eternity. We must remember that rituals are not a purpose in themselves, but rather a means by which we are connected with God.

On the other hand, changes of content are hypocritical and ridiculous. I have no respect for people who try to change the very content of their religion to "adapt" to whatever the public opinion happens to support at this particular point in time. They are either weak in their beliefs, or using religion as some sort of commodity that needs to be sold in a pretty package. There is nothing I hate more than seeing my own religion being taken over by capitalism...

[Acriku]

Does that mean you follow the KJV?

[Dante]

On the other hand Edric, factions which do not adapt often end soon afterwards. Changes of form are merely presenting the same infomation in a new way, which in a way is adapting. But sooner or later there may come a time when that is no longer enough.

Changes of content may be undesirable but they might also signal the continued survival of the system.

[Edric O]

Acriku, English isn't even my primary language, remember? And the KJV is just a translation like any other.

Dust Scout, if the price of survival is to change everything you stand for, then it isn't worth it. Better to die a honourable death than to surrender.

[Acriku]

Well I was told that the KJV was the only version that wasn't changed from its translation...Oh well ;)

[Dante]

Dust Scout, if the price of survival is to change everything you stand for, then it isn't worth it. Better to die a honourable death than to surrender.

Well, we disagree there. But when don't we disagree? :)

[ordos45]

Dust Scout, if the price of survival is to change everything you stand for, then it isn't worth it. Better to die a honourable death than to surrender.

Well, we disagree there. But when don't we disagree? :)

Human Preservation instincts versus idealism, Edric versus Dust Scout, two ideologies that are distinctly opposite. Personally, this is just me, but I'd agree with Edric, better to die with honor, than to give up your core beliefs.

[nemafakei]

"Well I was told that the KJV was the only version that wasn't changed from its translation"

There's always a hundred and one ways of skinning the cat when it comes to translations. That is just one. The nearest you'll get to an 'unchanded version' of the NT is the 'Textus Receptus' (in greek - the version used by Tyndale, as I recall), but I don't know about the OT.