Isn't
the whole idea of religion to end up in heaven?
Not exact matches
I am an Atheist and I have made a life long study
of religions and the
whole idea of even having a
religion.
The alternative method, often used by scholars, considers one epoch
of Biblical
religion at a time, presenting the entire complex
of ideas which characterized that era, and then moves on to study the next succeeding epoch as a
whole.
J. W. C. Wand, an Anglican theologian, wrote several decades ago that «it is actually possible to regard transfiguration as the fundamental
idea in the Christian
religion and as placing in a nutshell the
whole story
of the individual Christian life as well indeed as that
of society as a
whole.»
A little research goes along way — the
whole idea behind the resurrection has it basis in much earlier
religions — thousands
of years before JC.
On the
whole, the
idea of religion as sacred canopy has not yet been tested sufficiently to suggest that its merits outweigh those
of several other contending approaches in the sociology
of religion.
The world is not black and white and your
whole idea of «us against them» is fundamental to your inability to understand true spiritual growth outside
of one
religion.
The
whole idea of tithing is rooted in an entirely different time, culture and
religion.
It sounds pretty exclusive to me, and it excludes a
whole lot
of ideas, concepts, and
religions.
The
whole force
of the Christian
religion, therefore, so far as belief in the divine personages determines the prevalent attitude
of the believer, is in general exerted by the instrumentality
of pure
ideas,
of which nothing in the individual's past experience directly serves as a model.
Indeed, it has been supposed by some that the teraphim, household gods, (Genesis 35:4; 31:19; 30 - 35; I Samuel 15:23; 19:13, 16; II Kings 23:24) were originally images
of ancestors; that they were honored as such and were part
of the apparatus
of popular
religion; (Hosea 3:4) that mortuary customs which the prophetic school later condemned grew up around them; (Cf. Deuteronomy 26:13 - 14) that the right
of performing the necessary ceremonies for one's ancestors devolved upon a son and that this fact underlay both the sense
of tragedy in being sonless and the practices
of levirate marriage and
of adoption to avoid such disaster; (Cf. Genesis 15:2 - 3; 30:3 - 8; Deuteronomy 25:5 - 10) and that this set
of ideas and customs was an integral part
of the
whole clan organization
of early Israel.
I can understand the
idea of religion as a guide you can use to help you move forward, but the
whole idea of using the Bible as some kind
of legal case book is just repugnant, because the cases that are made are almost invariably regressive and inhuman.
As Steven Weinberg points out here, the argument made against extremists ends up invoking a moral sense to argue that the religious
ideas of the extremists are wrong, when the
whole point
of religion is that it should be the other way around.
Actually the
whole religion of «global warming» is based on this false
idea.