Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Dushan S]

I think that fact that western, white, mostly Christian culture people got at one point in history control over planet, and now have technological edge over other races, made us belive that whole world is turning around us and our way of thinking.
In some eastern religions, god and faith are not opposition to scientific thinking because their religious concepts are totally different. Actually most of western philosophers are childish compared to what Chinese Indians or Japanese was growing thousands years ago, if you got to know their concepts and teachings. It is just that we are so anglo/eurocentric and so used to think in certain way.

This "Father-patriachal-loveandpunishyou-god" is Judeo-Christian concept, there is no problem in being religious man and at the same time quite realistic and scientific. On east, it is not unusual that scientists are religious people, but on the west it would be strange, right?

Also, Christian religion as we know it today (it was not always like that) is not based on practice but on believing, and church is not allowing you to have your own personal experience of divinity, it is actually heretic because, priests are only one that can act like a link between human and a god. In most of other religions you have religions for the masses but it is easy and open to everyone to use it like a method, a way to reach your own way to communicate to "god" (and you can call it any way you want, nature, higher energy, universe, whatever), so it becomes personal exploration. And it is openly explained that god is represented thru your own self, and that is actually a state, not a real person, so it is technically possible to become Christ/alike. On the other hand, it would be very heretic in the west because we had so small number of enlightened, god’s people in history, and church was using Christ's teachings like method to gain power and control historically, we have even destroyed whole races and nations in name of god and Jesus Christ.

So I really want to say that we should have broader view at religious/not religious dilemma than just to think about it in terms of Christian religious concepts. Religion can be something very individual, very personal and authentic, based on our own experiences, and feelings, we do not have to be "by the book" religious and on the other hand it is not football league, we do not have to choose to be sports of just one team, and refuse the other one.

In fact my religious feelings and experiences are only mine and unique. It would be strange if someone else comes with exactly same feelings and thoughts, we are just different, and it is a good thing.

And sorry for eventual mistakes, this is not my native language, so...

 

[Kenneth R.]

Your raise a non-issue.

People believe in God, not the bible.

Most Christians don't bother reading too much of their holy text. Some go through their entire lives not reading it.

i would argue that those people are not truly in touch with that which they profess to know. how can one know what God is, wants, etc... without reading the word of God?

Indeed. It was not created to control people.
But many in power or in positions of influence have used it as a tool or means of control, no doubt.

absolutely.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I think that fact that western, white, mostly Christian culture people got at one point in history control over planet, and now have technological edge over other races, made us belive that whole world is turning around us and our way of thinking.
In some eastern religions, god and faith are not opposition to scientific thinking because their religious concepts are totally different. Actually most of western philosophers are childish compared to what Chinese Indians or Japanese was growing thousands years ago, if you got to know their concepts and teachings. It is just that we are so anglo/eurocentric and so used to think in certain way.

This "Father-patriachal-loveandpunishyou-god" is Judeo-Christian concept, there is no problem in being religious man and at the same time quite realistic and scientific. On east, it is not unusual that scientists are religious people, but on the west it would be strange, right?

Also, Christian religion as we know it today (it was not always like that) is not based on practice but on believing, and church is not allowing you to have your own personal experience of divinity, it is actually heretic because, priests are only one that can act like a link between human and a god. In most of other religions you have religions for the masses but it is easy and open to everyone to use it like a method, a way to reach your own way to communicate to "god" (and you can call it any way you want, nature, higher energy, universe, whatever), so it becomes personal exploration. And it is openly explained that god is represented thru your own self, and that is actually a state, not a real person, so it is technically possible to become Christ/alike. On the other hand, it would be very heretic in the west because we had so small number of enlightened, god’s people in history, and church was using Christ's teachings like method to gain power and control historically, we have even destroyed whole races and nations in name of god and Jesus Christ.

So I really want to say that we should have broader view at religious/not religious dilemma than just to think about it in terms of Christian religious concepts. Religion can be something very individual, very personal and authentic, based on our own experiences, and feelings, we do not have to be "by the book" religious and on the other hand it is not football league, we do not have to choose to be sports of just one team, and refuse the other one.

In fact my religious feelings and experiences are only mine and unique. It would be strange if someone else comes with exactly same feelings and thoughts, we are just different, and it is a good thing.

And sorry for eventual mistakes, this is not my native language, so...

oh i agree. the religion vs science debate is pointless, since the two should not be in opposition but work together. the fault doesn't lie in the religion, but in western society's bastardization of it. all must keep in mind that christianity, often labeled as the "western" religion, originated in the middle-east.

you speak of the religion being belief and not experience, because of priests. that generalization is a good case against roman catholicism, but not all christians (myself included) work that way. i believe action is everything. what good is belief if you don't live by it?

on your later points, i tend to agree.

 

[speed]

oh i agree. the religion vs science debate is pointless, since the two should not be in opposition but work together. the fault doesn't lie in the religion, but in western society's bastardization of it. all must keep in mind that christianity, often labeled as the "western" religion, originated in the middle-east.

you speak of the religion being belief and not experience, because of priests. that generalization is a good case against roman catholicism, but not all christians (myself included) work that way. i believe action is everything. what good is belief if you don't live by it?

on your later points, i tend to agree.

I love your ideas here Dushan, but I would disagree.

First, I wouldnt say the Eastern religions were more accomodating to Science, but they were accomodating to nature.

Moreover, Science demands faith as Religion does. Why do you think the West became so technoligically advanced? Newton, Liebniz, Pascal, all were deeply Religious men who in their science by trying to explain God, ended up explaining Force, gravity, and all the other good stuff that was in the past considered taboo and entirely the domain of God. Read the old christian philosophers--everything we consider scientific was once considered the domain of God. By faith and curiousity, these scientists began explaining God away into a purely material and mechanical being that has lost his meaning.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Moreover, Science demands faith as Religion does.

of course

Read the old christian philosophers--everything we consider scientific was once considered the domain of God. By faith and curiousity, these scientists began explaining God away into a purely material and mechanical being that has lost his meaning.

science explains numbers, relationships, rules, patterns. this much we consent is no mystery. what still eludes science is the cause of some of this order. why 3.1415...? why do certain patterned shapes appear in seemingly unrelated aspects of nature? why do the laws of physics work so perfectly well? one can believe that all this is random chance, or that a higher intelligence wrought it so. God has not been explained away, his mysteries and blueprints have been brought to light.

 

[Dushan S]

all must keep in mind that christianity, often labeled as the "western" religion, originated in the middle-east.

I agree, but if we speak of christianity as we think of it and know it, it is western adopted, and changed. And I do think that early christianity and christianity of middle ages in europe got many differences.

you speak of the religion being belief and not experience, because of priests. That generalization is a good case against roman Catholicism, but not all Christians (myself included) work that way. i believe action is everything. what good is belief if you don't live by it?

I speak about mass religion, and that is case in most of religions. I do think that it is the same in other religions, fellow Buddhist is usually not much more spiritual than christian. I am against belief as is case with most of “religious” people. If it makes you blind and brainless sheep, then I am against it.
I prefer to know and understand things, not to believe in something based on what society, parents, and tradition are telling me. I prefer personal experience, and a lot of early Christianity, Gnosticism for instance, was about experience and not about faith. So it makes me atheist if I personally find out thru practice that there is no god or makes me religious if I find out that there is a god, but then it is not about faith but about knowledge, right?
There is another way to look at faith (father Antonio Blum actually has beautifully said that, and he is a Christian, but based on personal experience), not as a blind belief in something other are telling us to believe in, but as a kind of a force, a strength we are finding inside of us to keep on hanging on experience of god that once happened on moving forward. Like when you are separated from the person you love. It is not your imagination, you know that person and love her, and even if you don't know when you will see her next time, you still love her, and it is not changing, because you have Faith in her and in your love. But this is quite different from usual meaning of religious faith as we know it, mindless following of something that is served to us by church as an organization.

 

[speed]

of course
science explains numbers, relationships, rules, patterns. this much we consent is no mystery. what still eludes science is the cause of some of this order. why 3.1415...? why do certain patterned shapes appear in seemingly unrelated aspects of nature? why do the laws of physics work so perfectly well? one can believe that all this is random chance, or that a higher intelligence wrought it so. God has not been explained away, his mysteries and blueprints have been brought to light.

If you wish to see it that way it would prove a compatablity of monotheism with Science. Strangely enough, truly such ideas go back to Kabbala and even alchemy.

But SS, by accepting such a finding, you are essentially accepting God as nothing more than nature--God is not a mystical symbolic being who offerred his son for sacrifice, but merely a totally organic organism or natural force. You take the soul and mysticism out of God, and replace it with organic nothingness which we have today. You are basically making a case for buddhism or Taoism, or the peripatetic philosophy without a higher logos for soul.

 

[Dushan S]

I love your ideas here Dushan, but I would disagree.

First, I wouldnt say the Eastern religions were more accomodating to Science, but they were accomodating to nature.

Hmmm. Accommodating means that they are changing in any way, right? Well I also do not think they are accommodating. I think that way universe was explained in eastern religions is not by itself unscientific. First, in east they were really practical, and they were using methods we today call scientific, meditation, or acupuncture, or Yoga are all children of their religious concept, and as they are based on practical development they simply work. If eastern man says, "prana as an energy is all around us" it is not part of religious dogma, it is for practical reason because he wants to use this energy for his own good. In a way, in east, religion was a science about universe, very practical and logical way for them to investigate world around them. So today when they are adopting science in western sense, it is not against religious part in their minds, because it is just another way to find out more around us.
On other way, religion on the western world, and in the Islam world, I think, is more about rules and beliefs that are aimed at moral laws of society, about the way someone should act to bi considered "right", and "good". I hope I have better explained my point...struggling with english

Moreover, Science demands faith as Religion does. Why do you think the West became so technologically advanced? Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, all were deeply Religious men who in their science by trying to explain God, ended up explaining Force, gravity, and all the other good stuff that was in the past considered taboo and entirely the domain of God. Read the old Christian philosophers--everything we consider scientific was once considered the domain of God. By faith and curiosity, these scientists began explaining God away into a purely material and mechanical being that has lost his meaning.

I agree, and if you learn about Einstein or Tesla you will find out that they were really religious when talking about forces of the universe. Actually I have found out that a most of great scientist we know were becoming religious in some way when talking about mysteries of our universe. But I don't think that Newton or Leibniz are typical Christians, they were much more broad-minded, do you agree? And mysteries they were researching were i domain of god, and I think it is good that they are not there anymore, but you are talking about Christian religion, and this is not religion based on experience, or research about god, but on keeping dogma unchanged and untouchable. (Although there are people in Christianity doing just that, looking for real answers, but you won't find them that easily)
I was more generally speaking, and as you already know, I do think that religious and scientific mind can be unified inside a person, but it is rare. So I am not sure that You and I really disagree

 

[Iridium]

science explains numbers, relationships, rules, patterns. this much we consent is no mystery. what still eludes science is the cause of some of this order. why 3.1415...? why do certain patterned shapes appear in seemingly unrelated aspects of nature? why do the laws of physics work so perfectly well? one can believe that all this is random chance, or that a higher intelligence wrought it so. God has not been explained away, his mysteries and blueprints have been brought to light.

This is a faulty way of thinking, as it imposes logic and reason onto an apathetic universe. You assume that there should be a "because" answer to every "why" question, but the world does not work that way. A more accurate question is "how."

 

[NeverIsForever]

Also, Christian religion as we know it today (it was not always like that) is not based on practice but on believing, and church is not allowing you to have your own personal experience of divinity, it is actually heretic because, priests are only one that can act like a link between human and a god. In most of other religions you have religions for the masses but it is easy and open to everyone to use it like a method, a way to reach your own way to communicate to "god" (and you can call it any way you want, nature, higher energy, universe, whatever), so it becomes personal exploration.

You've raised many excellent points, but this in particular is beautifully put. (I wish I was capable of such coherent argument in a language not my first...) Anyway, to me this has always seemed one of the greatest contradictions in the practice of Christianity. If God existed and he was all-powerful, why would he choose to speak through a priest, who is only human and therefore as flawed as anyone? Especially many of the Catholic "priests," who have molested small children--how anyone could believe God would choose to make his wishes known through such people is beyond my comprehension, but that's another debate I suppose. My point here is that an omnipotent God would have no need to speak to us through others as imperfect (and often more so) than ourselves in order to make his wishes and expectations of us clear.

The other factor that has continually baffled me is the necessity of "church" in the physical sense. If one believes in God, what does it matter where he or she chooses to express this belief? Moreover, it seems to me that "going to church" and worshipping in a building made by man is a slight to God if he exists. If you believe the Bible (or equivalent religious text), nature is God's creation. Yet people designate man-made structures as their places of holiness, in effect declaring that they can improve upon what God has wrought. I never see Christians praying outdoors, and I can't reconcile this with the principles of their religion. If, for some strange reason, I ever become religious, you'll never find me in a church...

 

[Kenneth R.]

I agree, but if we speak of christianity as we think of it and know it, it is western adopted, and changed. And I do think that early christianity and christianity of middle ages in europe got many differences.

ah, but the original charges and teachings are unchanged, one must simply look deeper to find them. the religion itself remains the same, only the "followers" are changed. i would like to think i seek the unchanged essence of what Jesus began with.

But SS, by accepting such a finding, you are essentially accepting God as nothing more than nature--God is not a mystical symbolic being who offerred his son for sacrifice, but merely a totally organic organism or natural force. You take the soul and mysticism out of God, and replace it with organic nothingness which we have today. You are basically making a case for buddhism or Taoism, or the peripatetic philosophy without a higher logos for soul.

ah, no no... i accept that God is behind the laws of nature, not a part of it.

 

[Kenneth R.]

This is a faulty way of thinking, as it imposes logic and reason onto an apathetic universe. You assume that there should be a "because" answer to every "why" question, but the world does not work that way. A more accurate question is "how."

but "why" is the most important question of all. it is only "why" that imparts meaning and significance.

@NeverIsForever (not going to waste more space by quoting your whole latest post): i very much agree. i strongly question the motivation for gilding places of worship with gold and grand marble, size and splendor- that a tribute to God would be wrought of that which he warns against becoming too comfortable with. to me, the greatness of a church resides within the spirit of its patrons, the group of people that give it life, whether it is a massive cathedral or no building at all.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The other factor that has continually baffled me is the necessity of "church" in the physical sense. If one believes in God, what does it matter where he or she chooses to express this belief? Moreover, it seems to me that "going to church" and worshipping in a building made by man is a slight to God if he exists. If you believe the Bible (or equivalent religious text), nature is God's creation. Yet people designate man-made structures as their places of holiness, in effect declaring that they can improve upon what God has wrought. I never see Christians praying outdoors, and I can't reconcile this with the principles of their religion. If, for some strange reason, I ever become religious, you'll never find me in a church...

You must have seen that movie Stigmata.

Also, it seems many of you have a rather poor understanding of post-Vatican II Catholicism.

 

[NeverIsForever]

You must have seen that movie Stigmata.

Nope...actually I don't really watch movies, or even T.V. for that matter. Probably kind of strange for a teenager, but I've never had much of an interest in the fluff that is most pop culture (though I do like movies that scare me...)

What I believe, I've arrived at through simple logic, discussion, and lots of voluntary reading :Spin:

 

[the alumnus]

As for the Old Testament, I still see it and its tribal god as totally incompatable with the Christian message.

i concur, but would add allah to the list of petty tribal gods.

 

[Iridium]

Watch me fire off some impossible to answer why questions: why is the sky blue? I don't want you to explain the physical reaction which makes the sky seem blue, but the reason behind it being blue. There is obviously some meaning to it! No, there isn't. Reason/motivation is something only reasonable beings can grasp, and they can grasp it only among themselves. This is why "why" is a question that offers more of an opinion than anything else.

 

[speed]

Hmmm. Accommodating means that they are changing in any way, right? Well I also do not think they are accommodating. I think that way universe was explained in eastern religions is not by itself unscientific. First, in east they were really practical, and they were using methods we today call scientific, meditation, or acupuncture, or Yoga are all children of their religious concept, and as they are based on practical development they simply work. If eastern man says, "prana as an energy is all around us" it is not part of religious dogma, it is for practical reason because he wants to use this energy for his own good. In a way, in east, religion was a science about universe, very practical and logical way for them to investigate world around them. So today when they are adopting science in western sense, it is not against religious part in their minds, because it is just another way to find out more around us.
On other way, religion on the western world, and in the Islam world, I think, is more about rules and beliefs that are aimed at moral laws of society, about the way someone should act to bi considered "right", and "good". I hope I have better explained my point...struggling with english


I agree, and if you learn about Einstein or Tesla you will find out that they were really religious when talking about forces of the universe. Actually I have found out that a most of great scientist we know were becoming religious in some way when talking about mysteries of our universe. But I don't think that Newton or Leibniz are typical Christians, they were much more broad-minded, do you agree? And mysteries they were researching were i domain of god, and I think it is good that they are not there anymore, but you are talking about Christian religion, and this is not religion based on experience, or research about god, but on keeping dogma unchanged and untouchable. (Although there are people in Christianity doing just that, looking for real answers, but you won't find them that easily)
I was more generally speaking, and as you already know, I do think that religious and scientific mind can be unified inside a person, but it is rare. So I am not sure that You and I really disagree

I agree, we both for the most part are on the same page.

However about the priest comment of yours: the protestants did take out the middle man in the priest and replaced him with the bible.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Watch me fire off some impossible to answer why questions: why is the sky blue? I don't want you to explain the physical reaction which makes the sky seem blue, but the reason behind it being blue. There is obviously some meaning to it! No, there isn't. Reason/motivation is something only reasonable beings can grasp, and they can grasp it only among themselves. This is why "why" is a question that offers more of an opinion than anything else.

knowing the mechanical workings of how, the temporal of when, the geographical of where, identity of who, and the factual of what, leaves you only with a detailed account of an event. without "why", you lack understanding of the motivation and meaning of it. thus while science can explain a great many of the above, there are cases where "why" cannot be. this does not immediately default to "so why should we even care". i find that behind science there is a framework of intent.

 

[Iridium]

Once again, what is the intent of the sky being blue? What is the intent of certain metals being brittle and others malleable? What is the intent of gravity? What is the intent of the existence of RNA? These questions have no answers - it is unreasonable to assume that they do. Generally, when you grow up, you stop asking questions like "why is the sky blue?" because you realize that the questions have no answers. However, this is not the case with some of us...

Why did I make that post? That's an easy question to answer, since I am a reasonable being and I act based on what I believe is reasonable. The universe is not a reasonable actor - it has no intellect and no capacity for thought. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that all "why" questions have answers.

 

[Dushan S]

You've raised many excellent points, but this in particular is beautifully put. (I wish I was capable of such coherent argument in a language not my first...) Anyway, to me this has always seemed one of the greatest contradictions in the practice of Christianity. If God existed and he was all-powerful, why would he choose to speak through a priest, who is only human and therefore as flawed as anyone? Especially many of the Catholic "priests," who have molested small children--how anyone could believe God would choose to make his wishes known through such people is beyond my comprehension, but that's another debate I suppose. My point here is that an omnipotent God would have no need to speak to us through others as imperfect (and often more so) than ourselves in order to make his wishes and expectations of us clear.

Thanks, doing my best in English. Maybe it would be interesting for you to know that in early period of Christianity some Christians had same views as you, they thought that there is no need for priest in usual sense because everyone has to find their individual path. Also they would pray in open because whole world was considered god's house.
But there is nothing wrong in having temple by itself, a shrine as a place where you can calm down, rest, meditate, pray. And naturally, people that have devoted their lives to spiritual cause have always been somewhat dependent on help of society and common religious people, but in early middle ages church became organization, state within the existing states, collecting its own taxes, and with its own army.
Also, priest should be a person that is helpful to you, spiritual guide, not the one that leads, but the one that helps you finding your own true identity. But the basically good idea has been misused.

The other factor that has continually baffled me is the necessity of "church" in the physical sense. If one believes in God, what does it matter where he or she chooses to express this belief? Moreover, it seems to me that "going to church" and worshipping in a building made by man is a slight to God if he exists. If you believe the Bible (or equivalent religious text), nature is God's creation. Yet people designate man-made structures as their places of holiness, in effect declaring that they can improve upon what God has wrought. I never see Christians praying outdoors, and I can't reconcile this with the principles of their religion. If, for some strange reason, I ever become religious, you'll never find me in a church...

Well practically it is more easy to pray or meditate in building that is built just for that, that automatically puts you in certain state of mind. In some religions it is ok to have some kind of your small shrine in your own house. Technically, if there is a god, it is everywhere, including yourself, so you don't have to go anywhere, you can communicate to higher forces from your own sofa But if it is easy for you to be meditative while sitting on toilet seat instead in some kind of temple, then you are really very spiritual person