Why is religion taken literally?

[mannik]

I have never been able to figure this out.

I can understand religion's purpose, which is to provide a uniting set of rules and moral values needed for any civilization to function. I can understand people finding comfort believing that a benevolent force guides and watches over them. There is no evidence that supports or refutes that, so I can not say there is no god, but I can argue that everyone is wrong about what exactly God is.

I can not for the life of me figure out why people believe that the bible, or other religious text, is a historical account. From what I have read and experienced, religion was never ment to be taken literally, but rather figuratively. The bible and the stories in it are all based on astronomy and the movement of the stars, as is EVERY religion...except scientology, but I highly doubt that holds any historical truth either.

[Mathim]

It's a mob mentality thing. When people don't understand something they get afraid and angry. But where do they put that anger? They make something up to be angry at even if it doesn't exist. Deities and sins, for instance; god-fearing, and 'love the sinner, hate the sin', perfect examples.

So when enough people start thinking that maybe the thing they fear and are angry with are the same thing, that's religion. That's undoubtedly where it all came from. Morals and whatnot are just designed to protect these mobs from their bad seeds and to further unite them against others of different beliefs. Hence all the religious conflict that has split the world since the dawn of man. Or at least, that's how a cynic growing up around religious hypocrites views it.

But you're bonkers if you think you can REALLY figure religion out or if you even want to TRY to. Accept religion for what it is; a man-made concept, poorly conceived and even more poorly practiced. My recommendation; avoid like the plague.

[mannik]

So you believe that religion IS ignorance.

I certanly agree that ignorance plays a large role in religion, like Zeus and his thunderbolts, and the men at the head of those religions certainly benifit from that ignorance, but I don't believe that was how religion initally started.

I think religion started based upon what people did know. Ancient man knew the sun that rose everyday provided warmth and light, and without it there would be no life as they knew it. After carefully observing it's movements and behaviors they anthropomorphised it in stories, giving it a human name simply to make those stories easier to follow.

I don't try to understand religion, but rather people's convition to it. Why is it so difficult for people to admit their own ignorance? How can they expect to learn anything if they believe that all the answers lie in a single book which doesn't even agree with itself?

[Mathim]

That's a retarded question. Who likes admitting they're wrong? I know many people don't believe in religion at all even though they go to church and claim to believe in it. Hell, my foster parents told me flat-out they didn't believe in god but they still went to church and sang in the choir. So even the people who do believe religion (or at least the deity of a religion) is bunk, might still just enjoy the traditions. It's just not okay for them to force that belief on others or hurt others for not believing (Spanish Inquisition, and our current Muslim radicals). So if you're asking why people believe in something when the world is in such a bad state, there are any number of answers, the most common probably being that, when there is no hope, you have to create hope out of nothing, and hence, religion.

If you're asking why people still believe in the face of evidence like evolution and dinosaurs and bacteria on Mars and stuff like that, well, that's a more difficult question. More often than not it's stubbornness and that goes along with not wanting to admit they could be wrong. It's different than being in an argument with one's significant other, for example. This is something they've believed in all their lives, so how dare someone threaten that belief? It's shaped who they are so even if they do know it's got a lot of holes in it, they still love that belief. It's just that more often than not, they DO use that as an excuse to have a superiority complex and/or force those beliefs on others.

[mannik]

It sounds like your foster parents would agree with my theory of religion's initial purpose...unity. They didn't go to church to worship a diety, but rather to spend time with their friends and other people who otherwise wouldn't have a reason to speak to them. I can understand that.

Personally, I like being proved wrong. Because then I learn something.

It just gets me when people say things like, "evolution didn't happen because it's not in the bible.", or claim their is no God because evolution has been proven. One does not disprove the other.

[HairyHeretic]

There are also many more belief systems than christianity, and degrees of fundamentalist belief within all of them. I would suspect absolute fundamentalist belief in any holy writ belongs in a minority viewpoint, whatever the belief.

[mannik]

that is true, but what good does that fundamental mentality bring? From what I have seen it brings nothing but conflict. Why would someone prefer to be at war over their own ignorance than simply admit it and see the world in a new light?

[Mathim]

There are also many more belief systems than christianity, and degrees of fundamentalist belief within all of them. I would suspect absolute fundamentalist belief in any holy writ belongs in a minority viewpoint, whatever the belief.

But any belief can turn absolutely fundamentalist and radical. Stick a bunch of people into the situation in the movie The Mist and that's exactly what'll happen.

The problem is, when someone has that kind of thing happen to them, where they're faced with Evolution being a proven fact and not a theory (only called a theory BECAUSE of those stubborn religious wankers) they don't think, "Hey, that's an interesting viewpoint, maybe I should study my own religion more and find the truth in it, and if there is no truth there, I'll seek another one with similar values and truth, or make one of my own." Instead, they think "You are a blasphemer and you'll burn in hell! And if god won't strike you down for your sacrilege, then I will for him!" Hence the difficulty. When people's faith is threatened they aren't all understanding and reasonable, they're defensive and aggressive. That's why I abandoned my faith before I hit puberty. I saw how destructive that kind of hypocrisy was.

[mannik]

Blasphemy - Any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.

It is possible to approach subjects such as evolution without blasphemy. I have done it plenty of times in the past. There is a valid scientific theory call the "theory of intelligent design" which basically states that evolution did indeed happen, but it wasn't necesarily just a random sequence of events.

It is indeed possible to guide the evolutionary process. Humans have done it with the modern breeds of cats and dogs. I do not wish to threaten anyone's beliefs.

[HairyHeretic]

The problem is, when someone has that kind of thing happen to them, where they're faced with Evolution being a proven fact and not a theory (only called a theory BECAUSE of those stubborn religious wankers)

Not quite. A Theory in scientific terminology has a slightly different meaning to the every day use of the word.

And it may be that evolution could some day be proven wrong. But at the moment, it is to the best of human knowledge, the best explanation we have for how things have happened. Maybe some day a new piece of evidence will come along that doesn't fit, and someone will adapt the current theory to something testible and verifiable that that piece of evidence does fit into, along with everything that has come before.

That's how a theory changes over time, and how progress is made.

More or less.

[Moondazed]

Personally, I think religion is the result of fear and the illusion of security.  For some reason humans struggle with not knowing what will happen once we die and need to feel secure in the fact that we won't just, well, end.  That's what I think is at the root of it, anyway :)

[Valerian]

That's a retarded question.

Careful, Mathim.  Keep things polite.

[Inkidu]

Why is anything taken literally? Couldn't this whole universe be based on nothing more than our literal interpretation of a belief that existence exists? Couldn't there ever be something that just causes something in existence to not be found true? It's all belief. Literal or not. I mean Einstein says gravity doesn't exist. There are merely objects large enough to hold things in place through distortions and warps in time and space. We all have our literal beliefs. It's what keeps us sane. /End the Twilight Zone.    

[mannik]

Show me proof that I do not exist and I will agree with you.

When you talk about massive objects creating distortions and warps in time and space...that is gravity. Einstein merely explained what it was and why it does what it does, not disprove it.

The goal of science is not to disprove but to simply understand why.

[Inkidu]

That doesn't stop the universe from throwing you a curve ball. What stops anything from not being any longer? You believe you exist in some literal way. So why is religion any different?

[Oniya]

Why is anything taken literally? Couldn't this whole universe be based on nothing more than our literal interpretation of a belief that existence exists?

In order for us to believe that existence exists, then there would have to be something there doing the believing.  That's the crux of Descartes' famous 'I think, therefore I am'.  One's own existence is the central grain of sand of what one doesn't need 'faith' to explain, but there are always going to be some things that we cannot prove based on our existing knowledge.

But did Descartes
Depart
With the thought
'Therefore, I'm not.'?


Oh, and Mannik?  You might be interested in a show called 'The Naked Archaeologist'.  It mostly covers Biblical topics, but from a perspective that even a 'blaspheming heathen' like myself can appreciate. (I was raised Roman Catholic, got fed up with certain aspects that aren't in the books, and rolled the rest into 'Wouldn't it be great if people could be nice to each other for a change?')

[Inkidu]

Aristotle said, "To do is to be." I believe, and I'm more than inclined to believe him over Descartes. Because a lot of do without thinking and they would argue that they exist.
It's all a matter of what you believe. That's what I'm saying.

[Oniya]

I think Descartes' definition of 'thinking' might have been a bit broader than the one you're using.  True, their thoughts might be limited to mere reactions, and their decisions might not be reasoned, but there is something there to react and decide, even if it's just whether to go for the Big Mac or the Whopper.

[mannik]

Oh, and Mannik?  You might be interested in a show called 'The Naked Archaeologist'.  It mostly covers Biblical topics, but from a perspective that even a 'blaspheming heathen' like myself can appreciate. (I was raised Roman Catholic, got fed up with certain aspects that aren't in the books, and rolled the rest into 'Wouldn't it be great if people could be nice to each other for a change?')

I've never seen that show. I'm assuming it comes on history chanel.

And that last bit about people being nice to eachother is actually the reason I ask all these questions. If people would be willing to admit they don't know this stuff they wouldn't have anything to fight over...except oil, but that is a conflict I can at least understand.

[Ket]

If people would be willing to admit they don't know this stuff they wouldn't have anything to fight over...

People as a whole are not willing to be open-minded enough to accept that everyone will have a different view than themselves.  While I try to always see both sides of a story and be as open-minded as possible, I do at times catch myself pressing my opinions onto someone as fact.  And that's when I have to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation.

Your reality is not the same as my reality.  Your existence is not the same as my existence.  Simply because we both view the world in different ways. 

[Inkidu]

I think Descartes' definition of 'thinking' might have been a bit broader than the one you're using.  True, their thoughts might be limited to mere reactions, and their decisions might not be reasoned, but there is something there to react and decide, even if it's just whether to go for the Big Mac or the Whopper.

Well Descartes's little saying doesn't account for my computer of a wall. They obviously exist and don't think. By traditional connotations.

If people would be willing to admit they don't know this stuff they wouldn't have anything to fight over...except oil, but that is a conflict I can at least understand.

And women, men, grass, land, water, oh and that still doesn't really exclude beliefs. :D

[Oniya]

I've never seen that show. I'm assuming it comes on history chanel.

And that last bit about people being nice to eachother is actually the reason I ask all these questions. If people would be willing to admit they don't know this stuff they wouldn't have anything to fight over...except oil, but that is a conflict I can at least understand.

It is on the History Channel - usually two little half-hour shows back to back, with things like tracing the path of Exodus using actual movement rates to attempt to locate which Mount Sinai was the one in the Bible, to forged relics, to the physiological and psychological effects of crucifixion.  (The host actually had himself tied to a cross in the more traditional means of the Romans.  Nails were for special occasions.  :P)

The last bit - well, I can't really take credit for it, as it comes paraphrased from Douglas Adams' 'So Long and Thanks for All the Fish'.  Most major religions, if you read the books (as opposed to listening to the diatribes) boil down to just about that.  Be good to each other while you're here, and look forward to a better place in the hereafter.  Although I'll admit I never read Dianetics, so I can't speak for that one. ;)

[mannik]

And women, men, grass, land, water, oh and that still doesn't really exclude beliefs. :D

You are right, I used the wrong words...they would have less to fight over...however peoples beliefs about most things aren't nearly as strong as their religious beliefs. which is part of the reason I find their conviction so confusing. If they are able to get over religious difference, the other beliefs would be trivial at best.

The things you listed the only one that would warrent a sustained conflict would be land, and I argue that is included in the conflict for oil, because if you don't own the land the oil is under, how can you own the oil?

[Oniya]

Well Descartes's little saying doesn't account for my computer of a wall. They obviously exist and don't think. By traditional connotations.

Except for the fact that Descartes started with the premise that anything detected by his senses could, in fact, be an illusion created by the mind.  Is the wall there, or have you just convinced yourself it's there, even to the extent of believing you feel it when you place your hand on it?  'I could be imprisoned in a nutshell and count myself master of infinite space, were it not for bad dreams,' to quote the Bard.

*goes to check a few things, returns with more for the Storehouse*  Ooh!  Apparently, Aristotle used a similar argument.

But if life itself is good and pleasant (...) and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist... (Nicomachean Ethics, 1170a25 ff.)

Also, I did say that the Cogito argument was the first grain of sand in what you can accept without needing to rely on 'faith', not that it was the sum total of all things that can be accepted as existing.

[mannik]

Your reality is not the same as my reality.  Your existence is not the same as my existence.  Simply because we both view the world in different ways. 

I've actually had that conversation with my brother before. What is and is not real? if no one knew of my existence, would I be real? Not to them, but certainly to me I would be.

We concluded that reality and actuality are two separate things. Reality is everything as is perceived by an individual. Actuality is everything in existence regardless of perception.

If I was to bury something of value in a cave, then die before telling anybody about it. That treasure would no longer be perceived by anybody, thus would not be real to anybody. If it is not real, how can it be included in any reality? However it would actually be there, still in that cave. If someone, for some reason went to that cave and dug in the same spot, they would find it without any suggestion that it was ever there in the first place.

----

And to Onia and Inkidu, The great philosophers never intended to be taken literally either, and I think you know that already. Those sayings were meant to inspire thought about their meaning, that's what philosophy is. To try and applay a literal meaning defeats their purpose, and doesn't really work right.

Philosophy is not a science, it is the art of thought. Art is always figurative and open to interpretation, and science is always literal.

[Inkidu]

Except for the fact that Descartes started with the premise that anything detected by his senses could, in fact, be an illusion created by the mind.  Is the wall there, or have you just convinced yourself it's there, even to the extent of believing you feel it when you place your hand on it?  'I could be imprisoned in a nutshell and count myself master of infinite space, were it not for bad dreams,'.

That's sort of what I'm saying. Personally I like to believe I exist, and if I don't this is a pretty good facsimile of what it would seem to be. I also believe there is God, an all-powerful, benevolent force that loves and protects me. However, if one says everything or somethings shouldn't be taken for their literal meanings, then why think anything is literal? I like my literal rocks even if it puts me in a hard place at sometimes. Oh and just because I believe I exist doesn't necessarily mean I do, or anything does. I just choose not to think of it that way. I think that was the larger gist of what Descartes was really saying. "I want to exist so I think I do, and as such I will." But you know the French, gotta go for that short and sweet version. However, that's all I'm going to say on this subject. Have a wonderful day, all. :D

[mannik]

That's sort of what I'm saying. Personally I like to believe I exist, and if I don't this is a pretty good facsimile of what it would seem to be. I also believe there is God, an all-powerful, benevolent force that loves and protects me. However, if one says everything or somethings shouldn't be taken for their literal meanings, then why think anything is literal? I like my literal rocks even if it puts me in a hard place at sometimes. Oh and just because I believe I exist doesn't necessarily mean I do, or anything does. I just choose not to think of it that way. I think that was the larger gist of what Descartes was really saying. "I want to exist so I think I do, and as such I will." But you know the French, gotta go for that short and sweet version. However, that's all I'm going to say on this subject. Have a wonderful day, all. :D

Personally, I choose to interpret things literally or figuratively based on which is easier to comprehend. A rock is a rock. It has a clear cut deffinition of what it is and isn't. It's properties can be observerd, tested, and recorded. Logically, a rock being a rock makes sense.

With things like religion and philosophy on the other hand, the literal meanings don't make sense as nothing is clearly defined. What is God? It can not be observed, tested, or even recorded. There are virtually no knowns when it comes to God, so how can it be taken literally? I have tried for years to understand the bible using a literal inturpitation and it didn't work well. Only when I opened myself to the idea of a figurative meaning did the pieces start falling into place for me.

I actually feel a stronger connection to it now than I used to because of my new way of inturpreting it. If there is indeed a god (I think there is), then the bible might actually contain some of his words, though not the exact way he put them, because he would most likely have put them in the stars (which the bible is based on) not on paper that can be easily manipulated.

[RubySlippers]

Well I have family that are Fundamentalists and literally take the entire Bible as true - scary. But one minister made his point clearly Evolution was the case here doesn't disprove the Creation account since that is a matter of abiding faith and the former a matter of physical evidence. They opt as people of faith to accept Creation and will let God explain things in the afterlife.

I wish more Fundamentalist Christians were that simple in their approach.

I guess its a matter of how much Faith you have in the religion you follow since I would think all but Confucionsm and some other philosophical based ones would be full of unexplainable things.

[Oniya]

Well I have family that are Fundamentalists and literally take the entire Bible as true - scary. But one minister made his point clearly Evolution was the case here doesn't disprove the Creation account since that is a matter of abiding faith and the former a matter of physical evidence. They opt as people of faith to accept Creation and will let God explain things in the afterlife.

I had one person - who I admired greatly for it - explain that the two could go hand in hand because 'a thousand ages in God's sight are like an evening gone'.  On the first 'day' (thousand ages), God created the heavens and the earth.  And so on.  I think the exact order might be a little off (birds before land animals, I think?) but it's a pretty reasoned way of looking at it.

[Doomsday]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I really have to say that quote has so many fallacies that and loop holes that it's useless.

[mannik]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

Sounds to me like they (The original person being quoted) are simply attempting to define an indefinable entity by using logic that pertains to human behavior to try and rationalize the behavior of something impossible to understand, IF it indeed exists (I assume it does, but base that assumption on no hard evidence or proof).

I argue that God is neither malevolent, nor benevolent...because why would it matter? All things are because God said so (If it is what we assume it is) God creating an earthquake that kills thousands of people is no more evil than you poisoning an ant bed you find in your yard.

And to answer the question, Whence cometh evil? Humans...Evil exists because we invented the idea of evil, we gave it a definition, and we catagorize our own actions according to those definitions.

So called 'evil' acts are performed everyday in the natural world...murder, rape, theft...all are natural occurences but are never called evil because they are only animals. They can't understand the concept.

[Algibard Glirings]

The God is us. Don't you see? Our doings drastically impacts future, one person can change the flow of events in a blink. We create our "tomorrow" same as our childrens. There is no supernatural being that controls us from above, there is just one big mind made of small cells called "people", and that's where all the crazy stuff is starting.

Other thought would be about the soul, how come Christians think that when they will leave their body, their soul somehow will keep the same looks, memories and thoughts they did? I mean if the soul decides what's in your head, then how to explain memory loss, change of behavior after brain damage... do you lose a soul, it changes places with other, "retarded", soul? Or is there no soul just a plain simple brain... I'm atheist myself, and I tend to think of everything alive as of little clocks - when their time comes, they just stop ticking.

I'm a bit angry at my parents, because they hammered christianity into my head since I was a child. Now I can think about existence, discuss it, thou in subconscious mind I still fear god. FEAR him. Christians, do you see? All loving and forgiving god, and it is taught to FEAR him! That's just one more reason to not be christian.

End of the rant  :D

[The Overlord]

All loving and forgiving god, and it is taught to FEAR him! That's just one more reason to not be christian.

IMHO this has always been the one big, glaring oxymoron of the religion. It's the sort of thing that gets you to ask if such a thing is said for your benefit or the benefit of the people who ram it down your throat. Eventually, the answer becomes crystal clear.

My parents both grew up Catholic, so I don't fault them for putting me through that. My dad's been passed on for eight years now, but my mother hasn't attended church for years now, and although she still holds onto some core faith values, I think after countless debates she's grasping the wider picture as I do. My brother most definitely is, and I don't know if my sister bothers to mull it over at all.

[Karma]

I'm not responding directly to anyone in the thread, just to the question, from my experience.

Religion is taken up because of weakness, the inability to define life for yourself and thus giving up your control to allow someone else to do it for you. This can be applied to me in my submission to my SO - but unlike religion, I don't need faith. He's proven himself to me.

[Valerian]

Please try to refrain from making sweeping statements that everyone who believes in a higher power is ignorant, weak, or some combination of the two.  Thanks.

[Karma]

Sorry if I broke a rule. I don't mean to apply this to everyone. It's just the entirety of my experience.

[Oniya]

More of a poor choice of phrasing.  *smiles*  I can see putting one's trust in a Dom as being very similar to putting one's trust in a Deity, especially considering the idea that the D in the relationship provides a sense of someone strong looking out for someone who feels weak.

[Valerian]

Yes, nothing against your comparison or personal experience -- I wanted to confirm that you didn't really mean to imply that of all people who have religious beliefs and/or follow a particular faith.  Just try and be more clear in the future.  :)

[The Overlord]

I'm not responding directly to anyone in the thread, just to the question, from my experience.

Religion is taken up because of weakness, the inability to define life for yourself and thus giving up your control to allow someone else to do it for you. This can be applied to me in my submission to my SO - but unlike religion, I don't need faith. He's proven himself to me.

To put this more delicately, I think the choice to be religious or not does represent two important subsets of human psychology. In essence, some of us are satisfied to believe in established dogma, while others are not content to do so realizing these to be limited or inaccurate in scope, and are compelled to figure it out for ourselves. But few faiths come without a defined rulebook, so religionists are giving up a certain degree of personal freedom, whether it's abstinence, no meat on Friday, no alcohol, etc.

[Inkidu]

I'm not responding directly to anyone in the thread, just to the question, from my experience.

Religion is taken up because of weakness, the inability to define life for yourself and thus giving up your control to allow someone else to do it for you. This can be applied to me in my submission to my SO - but unlike religion, I don't need faith. He's proven himself to me.

I don't believe religion makes people weak. I can perfectly define life more myself. I just choose to believe God has a hand in it. Instead of some seemingly random amount of coincidence. I'm perfectly capable of renouncing God right here on the spot, but I won't. So saying religion is a weakness is very limited approach. There are people who use it to that effect like you said, but the same could be said for atheists.

An atheist believes there is no God, or gods, etc. So it could be said that he prefers logic; it could also be said that he just doesn't want to deal with something beyond his scope of thought so he chooses to renounce it. I consider that weakness. He prefers the safety of the definable not leaving himself open to bigger things.

So saying religion (or anything I suppose.) is taken up because of weakness alone is again the limited view. I'm not meaning to offend anyone on this I'm just trying to look at the whole picture.

On another note. The love God fear God thing. I love my parents but I also fear them (in disappointing them among other things.) So maybe the context of fearing God, is disappointing him? Because that's what I fear in God. I fear being punished by him just as I would have my parents doing the same. Again another way of looking at things.   

[Karma]

Small note, Inkidu: Believing in a god (or God) and taking up a religion are NOT synonymous. I said nothing about belief in a higher power or spirituality. I'm not contesting anything you have to say - I just want to make sure you understand my distinction.

[Inkidu]

Small note, Inkidu: Believing in a god (or God) and taking up a religion are NOT synonymous. I said nothing about belief in a higher power or spirituality. I'm not contesting anything you have to say - I just want to make sure you understand my distinction.

Okay I didn't realize you didn't think they were synonymous.

[Karma]

A religion is an external set of rules, not a philosophical concept. It's unfortunate that so many can't separate these two - I know many who would call themselves Christians who are ostracized because they prefer to do their own searching and learning instead of ascribing to this or that 'denomination.' That, however, is a different topic, and I'll stow that.

[Algibard Glirings]

Well, I'm atheist but I see the potential bright side in religions too. Same Christianity. Now I'll tell what irritates me in Christians, so if you're of a feint heart, don't read any further.

Some parts of following text might sound like "angry yelling" thou it isn't, just a coincidence I guess  ::)

Most of Christians I know, has this belief that no matter what they do, God will do it for them. Like -"Hey Harry needs help", -"God is with him on this" *goes back on the couch*...
God is used as a nonsense catalizator amongst the mob of Christians like "Hey, John Doe doesn't believe in God, let's throw something at him" -(Everyone else)"Yay, let's throw tomatoes at satan lover!". Now I know my example is a little to extreme, should of used something instead of tomatoes... But it happens all around, and it scares the *bleep* out of me.

Now, if Christians would believe that God HELPS, as in YOU do something and he just watches over and looks that nothing bad would happen to you while you actually DO something, then it would be in a completely different, higher and, in my eyes, better approach level. I mean look at some people in the history, they had tremendous power while relying on gods help, and yet again they actually was doing something in the first place, not just sitting there and going "God, make that my enemies would die". As for "mobs", it is really going out of hand, but the problem is not the people who are like lambs listening every word you say, but the churches, who doesn't tell you "McDonalds, BurgerKing or any other business has NOTHING to do with god, and if someone is saying different, you can call him a retard." or just plain simple "Church doesn support Mr. X ideas, which are in no way connected to Christian ways"... But no, church is doing nothing, except for child molesting...

[Karma]

Faith without works is nothing. It's a simple, effective sentence, and like so many others in the book, is selectively followed.

[Inkidu]

A religion is an external set of rules, not a philosophical concept. It's unfortunate that so many can't separate these two - I know many who would call themselves Christians who are ostracized because they prefer to do their own searching and learning instead of ascribing to this or that 'denomination.' That, however, is a different topic, and I'll stow that.

A religion is not a philosophy. However, I know what you're talking about. That's the doctrine of denomination. As I like to call it. The religion of Christianity for example is John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, for whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." That's the principle of Christianity. When you get into denomination (Baptism, who goes to hell and what for, who are really Christians, one wife, many wives.) That's where it gets sticky. That's where people get ostracized.  

[Inkidu]

Well, I'm atheist but I see the potential bright side in religions too. Same Christianity. Now I'll tell what irritates me in Christians, so if you're of a feint heart, don't read any further.

Some parts of following text might sound like "angry yelling" thou it isn't, just a coincidence I guess  ::)

Most of Christians I know, has this belief that no matter what they do, God will do it for them. Like -"Hey Harry needs help", -"God is with him on this" *goes back on the couch*...
God is used as a nonsense catalizator amongst the mob of Christians like "Hey, John Doe doesn't believe in God, let's throw something at him" -(Everyone else)"Yay, let's throw tomatoes at satan lover!". Now I know my example is a little to extreme, should of used something instead of tomatoes... But it happens all around, and it scares the *bleep* out of me.

Now, if Christians would believe that God HELPS, as in YOU do something and he just watches over and looks that nothing bad would happen to you while you actually DO something, then it would be in a completely different, higher and, in my eyes, better approach level. I mean look at some people in the history, they had tremendous power while relying on gods help, and yet again they actually was doing something in the first place, not just sitting there and going "God, make that my enemies would die". As for "mobs", it is really going out of hand, but the problem is not the people who are like lambs listening every word you say, but the churches, who doesn't tell you "McDonalds, BurgerKing or any other business has NOTHING to do with god, and if someone is saying different, you can call him a retard." or just plain simple "Church doesn support Mr. X ideas, which are in no way connected to Christian ways"... But no, church is doing nothing, except for child molesting...

"I believe God wouldn't have given us minds that reason if He didn't expect us to use them." Galileo, I think that's the gist of it at least. I don't believe in the churches anymore. I do believe in God. 

[mannik]

I think there are a lot of people who believe in God simply because it comforts them to do so. I can certainly understand how believing there is some guiding force that looks out for you can bring someone a measure of comfort and feelings of security. I don't think that choice is inherently weak...if anything it would lend some measure of strength because they don't necessarily have to rely on a specific person to provide those feelings, thus they are more relyant on themselves.

Of course that's not to say it's not nice to rely on people. It is nice to KNOW someone has your best intrests at heart and are willing to help you in any way.

Either extreme however is bad. Rely to much on one person, and you won't be able to do things on your own. Rely too much on God and...well...spanish inquisition and crusade type stuff happens.

[Inkidu]

I think there are a lot of people who believe in God simply because it comforts them to do so. I can certainly understand how believing there is some guiding force that looks out for you can bring someone a measure of comfort and feelings of security. I don't think that choice is inherently weak...if anything it would lend some measure of strength because they don't necessarily have to rely on a specific person to provide those feelings, thus they are more relyant on themselves.

Of course that's not to say it's not nice to rely on people. It is nice to KNOW someone has your best intrests at heart and are willing to help you in any way.

Either extreme however is bad. Rely to much on one person, and you won't be able to do things on your own. Rely too much on God and...well...spanish inquisition and crusade type stuff happens.

I'm like that. "The courage to face thing, the strength to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the things I can't." That old adage. I know God isn't going to help me with every little thing, but he's not going to overburden me at the same time.

[The Overlord]

I don't believe religion makes people weak. I can perfectly define life more myself. I just choose to believe God has a hand in it. Instead of some seemingly random amount of coincidence. I'm perfectly capable of renouncing God right here on the spot, but I won't. So saying religion is a weakness is very limited approach. There are people who use it to that effect like you said, but the same could be said for atheists.

An atheist believes there is no God, or gods, etc. So it could be said that he prefers logic; it could also be said that he just doesn't want to deal with something beyond his scope of thought so he chooses to renounce it. I consider that weakness. He prefers the safety of the definable not leaving himself open to bigger things.

So saying religion (or anything I suppose.) is taken up because of weakness alone is again the limited view. I'm not meaning to offend anyone on this I'm just trying to look at the whole picture.

On another note. The love God fear God thing. I love my parents but I also fear them (in disappointing them among other things.) So maybe the context of fearing God, is disappointing him? Because that's what I fear in God. I fear being punished by him just as I would have my parents doing the same. Again another way of looking at things.   

Food for thought here: Some people draw strength from religion so it gives meaning and structure to their lives, but I tend to wonder instead of a true religious experience, can a church or temple give you a placebo effect, a sense of false security. Some Christians I've met made me highly suspicious of this. They think they’ve had some life-altering spiritual revelation or experience and act accordingly.

Or perhaps it's the Oz Effect; religion or anything else isn't giving anything you didn't have already.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Why is it false security?  They believe that for whatever reason they have found some peace in the afterlife.

[Moondazed]

Actually, any kind of security is false to one degree or another.  In this case, it can't be definitively proven either way, which makes it a false security.  Devout religious people have bad things befall them just like heathens do, which makes that security false as well.  The thing is, if you can let go of the illusion of security and think beyond immediate gratification, there's no denying that things generally improve.  I understand the allure of organized religion, having experienced isolation on 9/11 when I wanted to do something, anything, and feel like I was part of something, but the path I follow doesn't include formal churches and the community is small and not nearby.  We went to the church where a friend's husband was the minister and it only served to make me feel less a member of something because they spoke a lot about following God's word and the risks of doing otherwise and I just don't believe that to be meaningful.  It was a strange, almost surreal, experience that led me to believe even more strongly that human beings really are herd animals who need that sense of security and can suspend reason in order to experience it.

NOTE: I am not saying that every person who follows a religion suspends reason all the time, just that I saw a solid example of doing so that night.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

If a person holds a crucifix in front of them in the belief that a bullet will be stopped in its tracks, then that is false security.  If a person throws holy water at an attacker in the belief they will be burned, false security again.  Believing that through community prayer and following a code of ethics that they will find a place in Heaven, that is unknown.  I suppose logically you can say they are putting invisible pennies in an invisible piggy bank, but that is their own choice.  We have no more evidence to support or deny that existence than any other.

Also, and with no offense intended, just because you went to a church gathering and didn't believe doesn't make all the others there lacking in reason.  I didn't see any suspension of reason there.  They didn't go jumping off cliffs did they?  You simply didn't find their words, practices or faith comforting.  That is not something you can than look at them and say..you are herd animals and without reason because you like this and I don't.

[Moondazed]

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that's what I was saying, because it's not.  The suspension of reason, in my opinion, happened when they spoke of the cause of the disaster being the hoards of sinners in the world.  Forgive me for not clarifying.  Also, my point about false security is that I don't understand why people can't behave in a caring manner toward each other for reasons that don't involve them receiving some unproven reward at the end of their life.

[The Overlord]

Why is it false security?  They believe that for whatever reason they have found some peace in the afterlife.

Exactly. Belief in something that may or may not be true could be a placebo effect, the bottom line is you don't know you found some peace in the afterlife. I can't knock others for their choice, but at least for me, this will never be enough. I'm perfectly willing to admit we really won't know until we know, and that is a truth.

[mannik]

Exactly. Belief in something that may or may not be true could be a placebo effect, the bottom line is you don't know you found some peace in the afterlife. I can't knock others for their choice, but at least for me, this will never be enough. I'm perfectly willing to admit we really won't know until we know, and that is a truth.

That's kinda been my whole point. No body KNOWS any of the answers religion trys to provide for sure, which is why I ask the question in the topic.

[The Overlord]

That's kinda been my whole point. No body KNOWS any of the answers religion trys to provide for sure, which is why I ask the question in the topic.

Well back to your original point, fortunately not everyone does take the bible literally. If you go through the various books, it's metaphor, mythology, literature and truisms, and historical accounts. Multiple authors, each with their own agenda. The people that take it all word for word are grasping for...something. It doesn't take much reason at all to figure out they're on the wrong track, I think the trick is pulling out what is important, both in a general sense and in a cultural sense, but of course this has lead to many different denominations over the years quoting and defining it in their own way. If there is a single truth in the bible, it's probably that nobody is really going to get it right.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Its taken literally because well..it can be I suppose.  There are people that taken various works of literature quite literally.  Need I go find all the books written about the Matrix when it came out.  At Loyola University there was a whole course dedicated to deciphering the Matrix and its philosophical implications, as if St Augustine himself had written the movie.  I've run across people that take the work of John Norman (I'm sure there are some Goreans here) very serious.  Some people attach themselves to the principles of the Jedi and some to Star Trek.  We have doomsday cults following ancient Miyan traditions and such. 

I understand that none of these people, well let's say the vast majority, don't actually believe in these things.  Yet its an example of how people do find something that "touches" them and run with that notion.  The Bible has enough historical truth to it that people can argue its absolute truth.  Much like confusing historical fiction for historical documents.  I run across only a few true believers of the Bible as historical fact though, so I suppose that strain of doctrine is dying out.  Even at my Catholic Highschool they taught that the Bible was not real, but was a philosophical book of teachings.

P.S. - Sorry Moondazed, didn't read that as closely as I should have.

[The Overlord]

Just because it can be interpreted literally doesn't mean it should be, and I believe history is on my side with that statement. I believe rational Christian denominations will see the bible for the collection of metaphor, mythology, literature and truisms, and historical accounts it actually is, and act accordingly. But of course not everyone has this capacity. It may be my view only, but I believe the four gospels have the highest chance of historical veracity...by the time you get back to Exodus you're talking loose history with extreme writer's embellishment, and of course Genesis is complete mythology (who was parked on a rock in Eden writing it all down anyway?).



As far as the Matrix goes, there were intentional and fully deliberate statements in that trilogy. The creators made statements on philosophy and theology as least as profound as the political statements Lucas made with his new Star Wars trilogy, particularly Episode III.


Off topic slightly but now that you mentioned it, I think the prophecy turning out to be B.S. was the plot tool I loved best in the Matrix.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Should be is a far cry from why.

Also, I was not referring to agreeing with political messages or even a brief touch of philosophy.  People follow many of the writings of Star Wars, Star Trek and Gor (just to name a few) with near religious belief.  The writings have touched something in them that they find attractive and so these are followed.

[The Overlord]

Well having read all of the above...the Bible, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Gor all have something profound or fundamental in them, so it's understandable.


...


Well...some people that read the series might disagree on Gor, but let's just say if Gor were real, I'd enjoy my vacations there.  :)

[Moondazed]

 ::)

:P

[The Overlord]

::)

:P

Oh go away...we all know we enjoyed at least one Gor novel...or three. :P

[Inkidu]

Oh go away...we all know we enjoyed at least one Gor novel...or three. :P

Overlord are you talking about yourself in the collective we?! (Never read a Gor novel)

[The Overlord]

Overlord are you talking about yourself in the collective we?! (Never read a Gor novel)

OK OK, then not 'we everyone', just 'we some of us'. Read several myself...haven't yet met a Gor novel I really disliked.

[Doomsday]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

My, I've gotten a lot of replies on this. I'm not going to retort against anyone replying to me, I just want to break down the quote and explain what I believe.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."

Well, this one is obvious. If god wants to get rid of evil but he can't, then he is not omnipotent, because God can supposedly do anything, be anywhere at once, etc.

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

Again, obvious. If he can prevent evil, but won't, then he's apathetic or malevolent, and not really deserving of our adoration.

"Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?"

If god is all-mighty and willing to do away with evil, then why does evil exist?

"Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

The clincher of the quote; If he does not want to prevent evil and indeed, cannot, then he is no God by human terms.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

It's kind of obvious what that train of thought means.  Yet it's the same angtsy logic that most teenagers use when rebelling against their parents in highschool.

[Doomsday]

It's kind of obvious what that train of thought means.  Yet it's the same angtsy logic that most teenagers use when rebelling against their parents in highschool.

For a person who barely fits 1/3 of that description, I think it's enlightening.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Then I'd suggest looking further.  The quote goes about as far as simply saying that I believe there is evil so I believe there is no God.

[Doomsday]

Then I'd suggest looking further.  The quote goes about as far as simply saying that I believe there is evil so I believe there is no God.

Belief is subjective, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. My belief is that Epicurus's quote is bulletproof :)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So you are going to argue against faith with faith?

[Karma]

I'm feeling waves of "The Bible is the Word of God because he says he is, and he is God because the Bible says so." Pretty circular, leading nowhere. Like saying that quote is bulletproof because you choose to ignore the bullets fired. I'm not commenting on the quote itself, just your odd defense of it.

[Doomsday]

So you are going to argue against faith with faith?

I'm laying my faith in something more concrete than the concept of God. Epicurus was flesh and blood.

I'm feeling waves of "The Bible is the Word of God because he says he is, and he is God because the Bible says so." Pretty circular, leading nowhere. Like saying that quote is bulletproof because you choose to ignore the bullets fired. I'm not commenting on the quote itself, just your odd defense of it.

Let's just say I'm tired and trying as hard as hell not to start an argument. As a programmer, the quote seems fairly logical, but I guess I lack a philosophical touch.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So were many of the writers of the Bible that so many people put their faith in and use as the focus for their worship.  Jesus was a flesh and blood person as were his followers. 

Just because something sounds logical on the surface doesn't make the statement true.  I can point to the Bell Curve book as evidence of that.  Hell that book even has evidence.

[Doomsday]

So were many of the writers of the Bible that so many people put their faith in and use as the focus for their worship.  Jesus was a flesh and blood person as were his followers. 

Just because something sounds logical on the surface doesn't make the statement true.  I can point to the Bell Curve book as evidence of that.  Hell that book even has evidence.

Ahh, but did I even so much as mention Jesus? I will not question his existence, only his divinity, and we're talking about "God" anyways.

As I stated before, I have no wish to argue or debate, so to say it bluntly, don't talk to me!  ;D

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Alright...then please refrain from posting in a board that is obviously meant for debate.

[HairyHeretic]

Play nicely, folks.

[Inkidu]

My, I've gotten a lot of replies on this. I'm not going to retort against anyone replying to me, I just want to break down the quote and explain what I believe.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent."

Well, this one is obvious. If god wants to get rid of evil but he can't, then he is not omnipotent, because God can supposedly do anything, be anywhere at once, etc.

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

Again, obvious. If he can prevent evil, but won't, then he's apathetic or malevolent, and not really deserving of our adoration.

"Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?"

If god is all-mighty and willing to do away with evil, then why does evil exist?

"Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

The clincher of the quote; If he does not want to prevent evil and indeed, cannot, then he is no God by human terms.

Having the power to do something and not doing it is not evil. It is not apathetic. Just because a parent can stop a child from rollerskating; he could get hurt. Why not stop that. Well any good parent knows sometimes the child's got to get hurt to learn anything. Tyranny from within is a sin. A human can bring the world to a some semblance of peace and sinlessness. However, he has to clinch the freedoms people enjoy. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I'm being very nice.   :o

[HairyHeretic]

I felt that exchange had the potential to blow up in a hurry. I would prefer that it didn't, hence my asking to keep things polite.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Nope, all good on this end.  Just felt that if his ideas weren't open to have their flaws pointed out he shouldn't try to point out flaws in others.

Epicurus is based around several very broad assumptions regarding the nature of God.  Because the argument is based around the presence of evil.  So there is an assumption that what we view as evil is indeed evil in the eyes of a divine being.  I can't fathom that since he is an eternal being where as our lives are very much mortal and secular.  Philosophically none of us can truly comprehend the presence of "true evil" which is evil done only for the sake of itself.  People rarely believe themselves to be evil, making excuses that their actions are for the betterment of some thing or goal.  While these explanations may be insane to most, they are what the person uses to justify their actions.  True evil would not justify, would not care and would do evil only for the sake of evil.  Just as the concept of true good is unknown to us because someone would have to do good without any self-reward or benefit, not even the joy of doing a good job.  They would be a machine essentially and could take no joy in the good they do.


Also the logic is a trick as well.  Let us say that God decided to do something and show his omnipotent power.  He got rid of world starvation, something that most would say is evil.  So he creates food.  Wham right there everyone has food on their plate.  Well now what about the farmers that spent their lives understanding their crops and build their lives around that idea.  No jobs for them so now they are unhappy.  All those industries that grew up providing food and services to those food providers are now without jobs.  Then what happens when people want more food, as they always do.  Is God going to make a candy cane appear in your hand at whim?  If so, won't people just keep eating all sugary sweets.  Abundance now and we are all eating as much as we want when we want.  So we all get diabetes.  God could cure that by making our bodies perfect, but then we aren't really human then if we don't contend with the imperfections of our bodies. 

The Epicurus argument has a very child-like quality to its simplicity.  God is supposed to be the parent that makes all the bad things go away, yet bad things are here so there can be no God.  Things are far more complex than that so it does not stand up to any speculation.

[mannik]

Jesus was a flesh and blood person as were his followers. 

I'm so, so sorry to have to tell you this....but no...Jesus and his disciples were not actual people....Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, and his disciples the 12 zodiac...

These videos will help explain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc-mrJf45Hg&feature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAegPhQOUg&feature

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I was not making reference to the legend or myth of Jesus, but the actual figure.  Many anthropologists have stated the possibilty that Jesus was a revolutionary fighter in terms of political ideology for Judaism.  They point toward the last name of Juda for one as Iscarius(sp?), which at the time also was the name of a guerilla group that attacked Roman citizens.  Also by looking through the Bible there are many instances where Jesus's remarks can be viewed as trying to drive away the Roman influence in his Jewish homeland.  Whether he was the son of God..no clue.

Taking the Bible as a document of historical writing, a few researchers have proposed that the birth of Christianity may deal more with the birth of a political theorist than the son of God.  Supernatural elements being attached to his story would not be unusual.  Similiar to how King Arthur's tale became fable, even though his actual existance was supposed to be real.

As for followers, they are most certainly real because Christianity still exists today.  I did not say his disciples.  The writers of the Gospel did exist, unless someone is going to claim an inhuman entity wrote the stories.  As such, since the writers existed then their weight in the argument according to his standards is the same as Epicurus.

[mannik]

My mistake, I misuderstood you.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Any closer to answering your question?