How does one find and what are "tenets" of a religion?
Tenet: any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.
Morality: 1) conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. 2) a doctrine or system of morals. 3) moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
And how does one come to believe if not by choosing for him or her self?
And if they haven't chosen for themselves, and they are taught to believe in the religion, particularly through promise of salvation and penalty of hell, does this not reinforce my argument about the unequal power of religion vs any other indoctrination?

One would think so. However, this is the opposite of what Non Sequitur indicates when he says that it is quite alright, in fact, clearly endorsed, when the particular tenets and morals are selectively applied. This is my point as well.

I already covered this actually.
Of course it would be absurd. Equally absurd is to try to get "truth" from religion without already having the required faith. In the discussion with Non Sequitur, it is clear that "truth" in Christianity is rather like mercury in a petri dish yet it is what, second most popular.
Funny, I was watching a video the other day about a woman who converted to Islam just days after 9/11 (otherwise it would not be news worthy ). The interviewer asked her why she converted from Christianity to Islam and she said something like; It's a beautiful religion and allows me more respect and freedom as a woman. She was quite serious.
Point being, she made her choice based upon the morality and tenets dealing with life on earth and not on any derived "truth" or the promise of 72 virgins.
I simply can't agree.
First, people don't normally choose a religion. They are normally born into it and indoctrinated from the beginning of their lives. I've waited for someone else to say that but no one has bothered. I wonder why.
I would think the only way to prove how people tend to choose religion, is to ask a convert from another religion where choice is evident.

" Originally Posted by JHC View Post
Religion cannot be implemented as an organized religion, (thereby also rendering it useless as a religion), without the delineation of power such as; mankind in fealty to God, followers fealty to religious leaders, and frequently right down to womans fealty to man and racial fealty."
Useless: without use.
Non Sequitur said that he believed religion was not necessary for a personal relationship with God after I commented that Jesus never advocated any religion.
Organizing a religion requires some power structure. Without this structure, there is no organizing and therefore, no organized religion, i.e., useless.

Well, I can't make it any more clear. I apologize.


No apology necessary.
If the logic is eluding you, try breaking it down and apply it to anything.
Apples make one healthy, without apples one dies. Therefore, either eat apples or die.

Take away Gods morality and I am immoral. Therefore, without God there is no morality.
He said, quite clearly (with common every day examples like obey thy parents, and everything), that without God's morality, he would be a sinner. Well I have no God, not his, not any. Therefore, I would not have god's morality.

He later clarified and I agreed not to rebut the clarification because he'd already made my point and I didn't want to rub his nose in it like some uncouth, immoral prick. Non Sequitur and I are having a very pleasant, civil discussion that I value highly. Please don't accuse me of being "unfair". I may be wrong but I can't be "unfair" because it is not a competition. I feel no pressure to win or cheat or make unjustified assertions.
Do you see why this rubs me the wrong way?

Cheers, don't let me scare you out of the conversation.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

How do they find out? I suppose they just ask "What are the 'opinions, principles, doctrines, dogmas' of your religion?" Though usually not in so many words.

And of course everyone chooses for themselves, though the basis for their choices differs from person to person.
But I would point out that it would be absolutely no good promising heaven or threatening hell unless the person in question already believed that such places existed and you knew how to get to them. No one is "threatened" by condemnation to a place they believe to be purely fictitious.

I don't follow you. "Particular tenets and morals" from what?

I'll assume the reference to mercury is a way of saying the truth is "hard to get a hold on".

If so, may I suggest that the problem is that you're trying to group a bunch of people together (based on the fact that they use the word "Christian" to describe themselves) and assume that they all have the same set of beliefs. But this obviously isn't true and that leads to conflicting opinions of what "truth" is from one person to another, thus making "what Christians believe" rather hard to nail down.

There is no set "Beliefs of all Christians". Partly because anyone can call themselves "Christian" if they feel like it (at least in this country) and partly because the entire structure is open to different readings and interpretations.

Less mercurial answers might be obtained by asking one specific Christian what they themselves believed, rather than asking what Christians (as a whole) believe. Any answers to the latter question will naturally be incomplete and shift from person to person and age to age.

Of course people choose their religion. If nothing else, why would we try to indoctrinate someone who can't make a choice; it would be a waste of time.
However, people have to base their choices on something and many people base them on what they saw and learned growing up. Our upbrining can (and generally does) greatly influance what we choose, just as it influances our knowledge of what choices exist. But we still make the choice.
That's why people convert from one religion to another (as you mentioned), or "convert" from a religion to non-religion. That's why missionaries from any belief system bother going out to talk with people.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What precisely should religion be useful for that it isn't useful for if it isn't organized? I mean, nothing is "useful" or "useless" in an absolute sense. It is "useful for XYZ" or "useless for ABC". I'm just not sure what the ABC is when you say than an unorganized religion is "useless".

But I would agree with non that one doesn't need an organized religion for a personal relationship with God. Though, I would say that such a relationship would be "religious" in nature, even if it was a "religion" known only to yourself.

OK...
Though it seems we're discussing side-items to some overall point and I'm not sure what that is.
Is it that religions are too dangerous to have around?
That the cons of a religion must always outweigh the pros?
I guess I'm just not sure where we're going with this.

My man Newton showed no such thing
In the General Scholium at the back of book III of the Principia you will find what Newton thought of the relation between his findings and the idea of God:
Here's the full Scholium:
General Scholium

It's the same with Laplace, Darwin, Pasteur and you might add Keppler, Galileo, Einstein, Witten, Gell-Mann etc.etc.
They found rational explanations for phenomena that were hitherto thought to be divine yet none of them showed an "absentia Dei". Indeed, the realm of unexplained phenomena which are therefore attributed to mystical, mythological or just plain mumbo-jumbo origins is ever shrinking yet that realm is not null and void and is not likely to be in the near future.
Even a total absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. These geniuses are already enough abused by those that seek to force religion upon science. Let's not add abuse by forcing science upon religion

I might be wrong about all those things you are right. I like what Douglass John Hall said "faith implies doubt." But there is one thing I believe which is that there is nothing more to add to the Bible so there is not going to be "extra revelation" and the Bible is the final authority. I might remind you that the holy wars and inquisitions were perpetrated by some Christians, not all, and now the Christian church has fully apologized for them.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Take it up with Julian Huxley!

Seriously though, as Huxley said, "God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." God may not be dead, but as knowledge advances, he certainly becomes less necessary.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Very wisely said indeed.

I would but the poor sod is dead.
You probably know the expression "There's no substitute for cubic inches". I'd like to paraphrase that to "There's no substitute to reading the originals". Just about every great original thinker gets abused, misrepresented, misunderstood, false claims attributed to, and so on and so forth in our contemporary superficial and shallow popular culture.
What I sometimes read on this very site regarding people like Darwin, Freud, even Marx, just boggles the mind.

I agree with you in that respect as explained earlier. But Newton didn't. Despite rumours to the contrary WoI != Newton