Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Cythraul]

If religious people could do that, then they wouldn't have to blame GOD or Satan for everything thing that goes right or wrong in their life. Accepting the teachings of a clearly self destructive teaching is giving up not only on logic but also in thinking.

You seem to think that all Christians blame every event on God or Satan. That just indicates your lack of education regarding Christianity and Christians. That belief is not essential to Christianity. If such a belief is supposed to be true, then such lack of responsibility extends even to one's own actions, and that is in direct conflict with the very of idea, even possibility of Christian morality or any moral system which takes human autonomy as central. Moreover, accepting such teachings or similar ones is not a requirement on being a religious person. Your view of what Christians believe is a misrepresentation.

If you can strip down your belief system and rebuild it where would you start?
The golden rule of course. Why you ask? Well quite simply because its the most basic of social contracts to exist in a functioning society.

I'm not going to dispute the validity of the above claim but only ask you why you seem to think a religious person couldn't take such reasoning as part and parcel of their motivation for holding certain religious beliefs. Another point, although you may have "thought for yourself" in coming to such a conclusion, the conclusion you came to certainly is not based on purely egoistic considerations. This highlights a considerable ambiguity in the notion of thinking for oneself. Given the version of it that you value so highly, I see no reason that religious people can't make decisions or acquire beliefs in such a way.

To do harm to others and not expect it back is complete illogical.

Really? It doesn't look like such an expectation violates any rules of inference.

Then you start building your other beliefs based on things that fit with the golden rule. So, why don't I lie to people? Because I go against the grain. Because I know it is wrong to lie, for any reason. Do I really have to continue or do you get the point? People who are told to do things don't understand the 'why' behind why they do it, and that is the underlying problem with manipulating peoples minds to believe in a set of morals that they do not understand the reason for them.

You seem to think that manipulation is necessary for anyone to come to acquire religious beliefs. That is false and it just reflects an uncritical attitude towards religion in general and an epistemological article of faith inherited from an inept and uncritical anti-religious stance propounded by half-educated sheep. If you're worried about manipulation then you have little reason to criticize the average religious devotee because, after all, you just don't know anything about their reasons for belief, until you actually inquire about it.

I certainly will never let anyone set my morals, and no one else should either. Every situation is different and sometimes the area can be gray, but religion and dogmatic doctrine are strict and have clear fear based punishments. On a side note, I have always wondered why crime never goes away, or even why crime is so rampant. Its because its based on a fear system of punishment, much like religion. The mass media uses fear to keep the public in check, because they know it works from the centuries of religion based fear.

You're clearly indicating that you have a biased view of religion. Is it a requirement that something be based on fear to be considered a proper religion? I think not. Are you even aware of any religions besides some perverted form of Christianity that you've seen on television?

 

[Silver Incubus]

You seem to think that all Christians blame every event on God or Satan. That just indicates your lack of education regarding Christianity and Christians. That belief is not essential to Christianity. If such a belief is supposed to be true, then such lack of responsibility extends even to one's own actions, and that is in direct conflict with the very of idea, even possibility of Christian morality or any moral system which takes human autonomy as central. Moreover, accepting such teachings or similar ones is not a requirement on being a religious person. Your view of what Christians believe is a misrepresentation.

Well I know that not every christian believes in this, but many do, and the those are the ones that are harmed from it the most. Picking and choosing things to agree with in the bible doesn't really make you a christian in the eyes of most christians because the bible is suppose to be all true, because it says so right in it. Some christians may call these ones heretics, or corruptors of the bible. It may be true that I haven't studied christianity as in depth as some people here may have, but I certainly know may christains and catholics and I have a pretty clear understanding of the views and beliefs that many of them are lead to believe, not saying that they actually do. I was force to sit in a church when I was young, force into sunday school and everything. Listening to the preachers drone on and on about the nonsense in the bible, trying to make it relevent to the lives of people today.

I'm not going to dispute the validity of the above claim but only ask you why you seem to think a religious person couldn't take such reasoning as part and parcel of their motivation for holding certain religious beliefs. Another point, although you may have "thought for yourself" in coming to such a conclusion, the conclusion you came to certainly is not based on purely egoistic considerations. This highlights a considerable ambiguity in the notion of thinking for oneself. Given the version of it that you value so highly, I see no reason that religious people can't make decisions or acquire beliefs in such a way.

my problem with religion, and when i say religion in mean organized religion, is that the religious texts are suppose to be the answers, and the the preachers are the deciphers to tell you what things in the text mean. The fact is, the bible says god created the earth in 7 days, that fallen angels are tying to send us to hell, fallen angels had sex with humans and created a hybrid race of nephilim, that satan and god make bets to see if poeple will still follow god, that the son of god died on a cross and rose from the dead, that jews are gods chosen people, etc.
Some books in the bible, especially Leviticus are so out-of-date that the rules and punishments are not done to this day, but christians still quote Leviticus when it has to deal with homosexuals and it being an abomination.
Many people take the word of the bible literally and as such, beleive everything they are told because they believe that if they don't they will burn in hell for eternity and the thought of that scares the shit out of them. So why can't they think for themselves? Its because they are told what is right and wrong already, and no longer need to deal with such questions. If they do, then they really are not true believers, and that is considered a sin.

You seem to think that manipulation is necessary for anyone to come to acquire religious beliefs. That is false and it just reflects an uncritical attitude towards religion in general and an epistemological article of faith inherited from an inept and uncritical anti-religious stance propounded by half-educated sheep. If you're worried about manipulation then you have little reason to criticize the average religious devotee because, after all, you just don't know anything about their reasons for belief, until you actually inquire about it.

Well the fact is that most people who are religious are born into religious families, or are pressured by peers to conform with the religion. Those who are not born into the family, choose to find religion because they usually feel helpless and their life is a wreck so they turn to the belief in a higher power for comfort. Some choose it now, because they see the moral decay of society to which they are a part of and the long for structure and reliability which religious doctrines deliver.

You're clearly indicating that you have a biased view of religion. Is it a requirement that something be based on fear to be considered a proper religion? I think not. Are you even aware of any religions besides some perverted form of Christianity that you've seen on television?

The only religions that I know of that don't seem to be based on fear are Buddism(which really is only a philosophy but has been made into a religion) and Wicca. I don't consider scientology to be a religion because it is just a trendy cult.
Theology has always been an interest of mine, and as far as I can tell, all religions throughout the ages have either borrowed from other religions, or were obvious non sense like the Greek gods, or the egyptian animal headed gods.

 

[Horus]

Okay, I have some idea of where the discussion is now, and I feel that the entire debate now lays on the matter of how religion actually works. It's a simple concept, similar to pop culture, but minus the brainwashed masses seeking nothing, and plus brainwashed masses seeking superiority.

Here's how religion works. It all goes way back to the very beginning of civilization, when man was settling the land. It began when nature was causing famine and disasters and what not. Humans had a choice to believe either in the fact that this was nature being nature, or to believe that there was a higher power, or God Thing controlling the universe and the forces of nature. Humans, being the idiots we are, especially back at the dawn of civilization, chose to believe in a Divine Force that brought ruin to them for their own faults and follies. One man came up with this idea, and told two friends. And they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on and so forth until we have an entire population listening to and believing this first man, who'se still talking about his idea. The first priest/ preacher.

Now, there's the question of what makes somebody actually believe in something like this. As I'm sure it's been stated many many times previously, aside from the common idea of a God figure in the world, the organization of religion comes from several things: Humanity's need to feel secure about themselves, and the need for social stability. First, the need to feel secure:

Humans have a bad habit of doing whatever it takes to get out of a tight spot in life, and feel superior to their peers. Questions about life after death, a higher presence, and stuff like that have plagued humanity for ages, and without an answer, they feel insecure. Now, answers to such questions are impossible to answer. Today, not even the most advanced equipment in the world cannot find any evidence of a Divine God Thing, let alone the primitive technology of not even 300 years ago, again, let alone shortly after the settling of civilization 14,000 years ago. A god figure seemed the only answer to such questions. "How come we're all here?" "Because God created us to serve him." Thats what people came up with through the millenia of existence. God created us to serve him and appease him. That explanation is the answer to so many peoples' questions, and because millions of people were so satisfied with that answer, it created common opinion, and thus, also created social stability. "Why should we build our civilization around something we dont agree on, when we have religion? We all agree on this, so let's base our laws around that." Thats what our forefathers in the beforetime said to oneanother, and so it was.

Now, superiority is another issue. This is the issue that indirectly caused so many Holy Wars and wars in the name of so many gods. People like to dwell on the idea that their faith is the way to go, and that all others are wrong. I as well am guilty of this with my faith. I very strongly believe that the common Judeo-Christian ideal of life is greatly misguided and that we need to return to a time when we agreed more on such gigantic issues. This is how I feel I'm superior to many other people. I maintain my sanity dwelling on the idea that I'm right. Everybody else does the exact same thing as I do, whether they realize it or not. Sure, you can change you rideas and shit, but you're really changing them so you can feel correct and superior over all other people, are you not? Now, this can backfire when you try and change people, and it can blow up in a most spectacular fashion. When two greatly different forces meet eachother, if they're determined enough, they can destroy oneanother. A catastrophic ending to a tale, that I believe will destroy civilization, and quite possibly destroy mankind as a whole, as it did in Atlantis. (Thats a different story entirely though.) Two opposing sides were so determined to be right, that they're ready to fight to the death over such a matter. This is what the Islamic "Jihad" is all about, as well as what the Nazi movement in Germany of the early 1940's. A group felt so strongly about being right, that they'll kill brutally to be heard. It's really a pity.

Now, I can go on and on about so many things and flaws with mankind, but unfortunately, I can't because I need to go to bed.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You are so right about the origin of believing in gods. I wonder if Christians accept this explanation or allow themselves to even think about it.

 

[Norsemaiden]

This may or may not be the case. Certainly one might not accept the whole of a religion, but what exactly constitutes the whole of a religion? That doesn't seem clear to me at all. My father, for example, is a Christian who rejects numerous passages in the bible as they seem to be straightforwardly contradictory to certain other tenets which cohere with what he sees as the more valuable teachings to be found in the bible. Am I not supposed to consider him a Christian? I just don't see a clear way to decide such things.



Well, refer to my response above for my view on your first point here. As for your second point, I don't see any reason why any and every religious belief should be taken purely on faith. But if what you say is correct then we ought to consider rational enquiry and religion as two incommensurable domains. Thus, we really wouldn't have anything substantial to say about religious beliefs. As for your use of the notion of coincidence, I've already indicated that I don't think it strictly applies to what we're talking about. I don't think it's correct to say "I just happen to believe what you believe" in the same sense in which one would say "I just happened to be calling my friend on the phone at the same time she was calling me." What seems relevant to me is that the beliefs are the same, and that's it.



I don't feel particularly inclined to disagree with you on this. But what seems relevant to me are the beliefs one has, not how one got those beliefs. Suppose I ask someone "Why do you believe in God?" and they proceed to give me some plausible argument for the existence of God (perhaps the argument isn't absolutely convincing, but how many of our beliefs are so certain?). Suppose I then ask somebody else the same question and they respond by saying they believe purely out of faith. How is the fact that they have completely different reasons for believing supposed to be relevent here? They believe in the same thing. You think that it's a requirement on religious belief that one takes their belief purely on faith. That seems rather peripheral to me, maybe it doesn't to you. But I have to ask once again, what exactly constitutes the whole of a religion? Why is unadulterated faith necessary and sufficient for religious belief? Why are good reasons impermissible?

Most people who say they are Christians seem surprisingly unaware of how unChristian they really are. More than any other religious people, Christians pick and choose from the New Testament what is convenient for them, and ignore what isn't (such as giving away all your property). What is far more honest is the non-religious person who just happens to agree with many of the things Jesus says people should do (and often practices these things, not because Jesus said so, but because this person decided to do it by his own volition) and who has effectively shown himself to be a more demonstrable example of what Jesus tells Christians to do than what the average self-proclaimed Christian would ever dream of. Someone like a Communist who works with the homeless or is an aid worker in Africa.

If you take the faith away from religious belief, you are left with a philosophy that you could pick n mix withother religions/philosophies and then there would be nothing religious about it any more. It becomes no more than a collection of appealing ideas. Indeed we should "consider rational enquiry and religion as two incommensurable domains", in that the religious cannot be rational enquirers. However, the rational enquirers can certainly analyse the religious.

Religious people also make unsuitable scientists because they are unwilling to accept anything that challenges their faith. Not that there are not plenty of atheist scientists who also have holy cows that stop them from being rational and honest (or who are corrupt and bribed to reach certain conclusions.)

To answer the question about what I mean by "the whole religion": I mean that you have to see the religion as a whole rather than cherry picking what suits you from it (if you call yourself a Christian). There are explanations for contradictions in the bible such as the differences between the God of the Old and New testaments in that Christians say that the God of the New Testament has moved on in some way. There are also parts of the new testament that a Christian might say were written by the Romans eg "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" . They could question it on that basis and the fact that Christ's message was clearly to render unto anybody who asks for it anything that you have. But taking issue with small details like that is not a rejection of the totality of Jesus' message, which must be accepted to avoid being a hypocrit.

 

[Norsemaiden]

yes, i need to clarify further. obviously we all have boundaries which we will not cross. i simply meant that this golden rule in its original format (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) carries more scope for difficulty and selfishness than a version in which you would do unto others as they would have you do unto them. i can illustrate this better with examples:

original golden rule: i do unto someone else as i would want that person to do unto me. accordingly, i (a muslim) who want to see shariah law established in this country under a khalifah (caliph/caliphate) (i don’t, incidentally: i don’t believe we should vest spiritual and political supremacy in one person) would treat my fellow person as i would have islam do unto me. even though that fellow person may follow judaism or christianity. this means that when he wants to make a film portraying jesus’s life i take action to stop him because islam prohibits pictorial depictions of prophets. i would have expected him to do the same unto me

modified golden rule: i do unto that neighbour film director as i believe he would want me to do unto him. so i tell him that i cannot support his venture because it goes against my beliefs, but i give him freedom and non–interference to make his film depicting jesus.

does that make any sense whatsoever!?

It makes sense, but the Viking idea seems better. That is to do unto others what they do unto you. If someone is good to you, be good to them. If someone is bad to you, be bad to them. In the example of the believer in Shariah law, he would see the person making the film about Christ as doing something bad to him and (depending on how bothered he was) would then do something bad to the person making the film (stop him in some way). It may not be a recipe for peace, but it is reasonable if you look at it dispassionately.

 

[Horus]

The whole "Do unto others as they've done to you" philosophy works very well, but has two major flaws: 1, the first person will rarely accept punnishment for a bad deed, so we'd just have a whole bunch of people doing bad things to eachother, because of their being stubborn. 2, Many people tend to be victims of what happens to be something very small and minor, and they see it in their mind as something much greater. I'm sure you know exactly what kind of people I'm talking about. The kind that can't take a joke. They'll have somebody play a small joke on them, and see it as a permanant social brand on their name, and do something horrible and cruel, believing to themselves that they're being equal. Then, the first person, from the beginning having understood that it's not as much is victimized, and exacts his revenge, and the case of my first point comes into play. The "Do unto others as they've done to you" philosophy can only work with an extreme variable of Rationalization on the matter at hand.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That is a problem (people taking disproportionate revenge) but you could just say that's tough, as there is no perfect rule for behaviour. It is not any worse (and in many ways better) than the situation that we have now where criminals are very often not punished by law when they have hurt someone badly and the wronged person would be punished by law if they took revenge.

 

[کوڈانشی]

Certainly one might not accept the whole of a religion, but what exactly constitutes the whole of a religion? That doesn't seem clear to me at all.

and herein lies a certain amount of difficulty and trouble! what does indeed constitute following a specific religion, as opposed to straightforward theism? as a مسلم (muslim) i tend to concentrate on اسلام (islam) and, on a lot of muslim forums, this throws up endless amounts of controversy as well as accusations of heresy, ‘kufr–ness’, and all other eccentricities of this sort. well, the noble qur’an exhorts us to ask questions, to search for knowledge, to demand evidence and not rely on simple hearsay, and — above all — to think, so this i do.

and i think these things: disregarding notions of what makes a good muslim, what do we need to do or believe in order to call ourselves مسلمون (muslimuun)? the qur’an refers to partriarchs (adopted later as ‘jewish’ by jews) as muslim simply because it stems from an arabic root word s–l–m from which ‘islam’ also derives. i would translate it into english as ‘believer’ as in one who submits wholeheartedly to ﷲ (allah, or ‘god’ in english). it makes good linguistic sense too. one who believes in god alone = a believer and ∴ a ‘muslim’.

but no! in fact, if you believe ‘orthodox’ sunnis, you need (here i think of people reverting/converting to islam) to declare your belief in allah, and your belief in محمد (muhammad, pbuh) as allah’s messenger. this means that belief in allah alone does not go far enough! surely that, in action if not name, elevates the prophet to divine levels!? in prayers sunnis call upon muhammad ’s name, despite the qur’an stating that we must make our contact prayers for allah alone. to do otherwise amounts to ‘shirk’ = associating partners with allah = polytheism. when you speak to them about it they say they do it only out of respect. but then they also say you haven’t completed your prayers if you don’t mention his name!

hmmm. oh, and my apologies for ranting

 

[Horus]

I think alot of the contraversy with the religion of Islam is mostly that considering the day and age we live in, when many people hear the words Muslim, Islam, Qur'an/Koran (however it's spelled in english) or anything else related to the Islamic Religion, they instantly think of terrorism and bombings and people like Osama Bin Ladin, rather than looking at Islam as another religion on the same level as Christianity and Judaism. Since September 11 2001, people have forgotten that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that's why Islamic Beliefs have become such a contraversial subject.

 

[کوڈانشی]

Since September 11 2001, people have forgotten that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that's why Islamic Beliefs have become such a contraversial subject.

in fact, i would go so far as to say most don’t support, endorse or believe in terrorism. i think of my local community, and communities i have interacted and worked with throughout england and scotland. my parents and folks of this generation who came here simply so their children could take advantage of superior schooling and make a solid future for themselves.

my father i would describe as ‘fundamentalist’ — but, like most مسلمون (muslimuun) i know, only to himself. and by that i mean he keeps up with strict 5–time–a–day prayers, fasts every year (as do i), he has made his pilgrimage to مکہ (makkah = mecca), etc. he cares for people and would help anyone out of a sticky situation if he could. unfortunately, not all people act this way, and even of those who do, not all openly denounce terrorism. we need to change this. i strive to change this. i also try to help my local community — regardless of whether they follow اسلام (islam) or not!

 

[کوڈانشی]

Here's how religion works. It all goes way back to the very beginning of civilization, when man was settling the land. It began when nature was causing famine and disasters and what not. Humans had a choice to believe either in the fact that this was nature being nature, or to believe that there was a higher power, or God Thing controlling the universe and the forces of nature. Humans, being the idiots we are, especially back at the dawn of civilization, chose to believe in a Divine Force that brought ruin to them for their own faults and follies. One man came up with this idea, and told two friends. And they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on and so forth until we have an entire population listening to and believing this first man, who'se still talking about his idea. The first priest/ preacher.

interesting and, to a small degree, accurate but, like with almost all things, i believe apparent simplicity hides complex layers.

take this article from robert winston, for example. he cites, amongst others, sources such as david sloan wilson (professor of biology and anthropology at binghamton university in new york), and argues that some form of theism (most likely pagan–style worship) emerged as a part of natural human evolution and helped to bond, organise and unify groups, as well as give them a more solid communal identity — thus helping them to stay alive better than those without religion.

he also speaks of dopamine and religion, snake handlers in tennessee, and lots of other fun stuff!

 

[Norsemaiden]

It seems relevant to point out that Professor Robert Winston (who is also a Lord, having been chosen for a knighthood by the government) is Jewish and gave a lecture entitled "Judaism and Science", at Cambridge University. His book "Human Instinct - How our Primeval impulses shape our modern lives",is available from the "Jewish Science and Technology books site".

This reminds me, about the "golden rule", it is not the case that the Jews believe in "an eye for an eye", except maybe when dealing with eachother. When dealing with non-Jews the rule would appear to be "1000 eyes for an eye."

 

[Horus]

What exactly do you mean by "1000 eyes for an eye"?

 

[Thasis]

The bible is a tool of manipulation, created by supposed prophets, used to help control the masses.

 

[کوڈانشی]

It seems relevant to point out that Professor Robert Winston … is Jewish

i know. you can tell by looking at him :Smug: seriously, though, he has done a lot of excellent work in regards to religion — his history of religion, for example, takes an almost secular look at evolution of religion, and makes for fascinating reading when studied alongside karen armstrong’s history of god (monotheism in the middle east).

This reminds me, about the "golden rule", it is not the case that the Jews believe in "an eye for an eye", except maybe when dealing with eachother. When dealing with non-Jews the rule would appear to be "1000 eyes for an eye."

hmmm… looking at modern day اسرایل (israel) i would certainly agree. but i must defend against unfairness and point out that many judaic notions (such as ‘an eye for an eye’) follow principles of negativity to highlight positivity. in this case an eye for an eye represents an upper limit of revenge — if you want to take revenge then don’t make it excessive. don’t, for example, take 1000 eyes in revenge for one eye!

 

[proglodite]

If you take the faith away from religious belief, you are left with a philosophy

The obvious missing aspect of this argument is that of spirituality. Religion has been only dealt with here on a mental level.

 

[Norsemaiden]

And they hold that the sins of the father are inherited by the son, in perpetuity. All the people who are decended from those who ever persecuted them are on the hit list.

 

[کوڈانشی]

And they hold that the sins of the father are inherited by the son, in perpetuity. All the people who are decended from those who ever persecuted them are on the hit list.

not always! perhaps when it comes to adam and eve and ‘original sin’ (which i see more as a christian than a jewish belief), but look in deuteronomy: illegitimate children ‘only’ inherit their ancestors’ sins up to the ١٠th generation!

 

[Silver Incubus]

The obvious missing aspect of this argument is that of spirituality. Religion has been only dealt with here on a mental level.

Religion inhibits true spiritual expression in dogmatic doctrine as far as I'm concerned. I find myself to be very spiritual moreso because the 'rules' do not apply and therefore you can be free to experience more of spiritually beyond what may be outlined in religious texts.