What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Let's also not forget that in the same times there were people who use the bible as their justification to ban slavery.

 

Saying something is not what it is because somebody used it wrongly is a non sequitur. You wouldn't say a shovel is not a gardening tool or good for digging holes because somebody used it wrongly to wack somebody on the head and bury them.

 

There are considerably more rules and verses regarding support for slavery then there is for abolitionism.  I would not the "used the bible to say stop slavery" without passages in the OT to show that.  Far as i can tell, slavery was normal in biblical times, Jewish slaves to this early Jews treated better then non-Jews (those are actual rules in the bible, post-Exodus from Egypt)

 

Quote

Exodus 21:20-21 King James Version (KJV)

 

²⁰ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

 

²¹ Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

 

If any early Jews were against slavery enough to try to stop it, there's no indication they were anything more then a minority.

[techboy]

I don't really have time to get into this, but a couple points for thought:

 

1. The best historical references we have for the life of Jesus are the texts that ended up in the Bible. That's not because of some giant conspiracy, or books being intentionally removed... it's because they're the oldest, most extant, and best preserved. Books like the Gospel of Mary tend to be dated later, and provide excellent insight into the beliefs of people at the time of their writing, not what Jesus did and taught. The Gospel of Mary, for example, tends to be used to analyze the tensions in middle 2nd century Church politics. It's not really written as a biography anyway.... like the other gnostic books, it's very mystical.

 

2. Using the letters of Paul to keep women out of positions of authority in Church is understandable but problematic, because it ignores (among other things) that he literally placed (and acknowledged) women into positions of authority in church, and writes about it positively in other places. Dr. Craig Keener has an interesting analysis of it here: Was Paul For or Against Women in Ministry? It's a thorny issue, and I think it's important to remember that Paul's letters were written to different groups with different contexts, which doesn't mean they can't be divinely inspired, which brings me to 

 

3. There's nothing wrong, per se, with a literal and strict interpretation of divine inspiration, but I'd caution against making it a central tenet of the faith, which certainly isn't supported by the Biblical texts themselves (in that you must believe it to be saved). There are many stories of people elevating a strict Biblical literalism to a central idea, then falling away from the faith when they couldn't make it work. Bart Ehrman is a very famous example of this... He's a fantastic scholar, and he just couldn't reconcile his simplistic and unrealistic view of Biblical inerrancy with his scholarly work, and rather than adjust his viewpoint on inerrancy, he tossed the whole thing.

 

I'd argue, for example, that the Gospels are written in the manner of Greek Biographies, comparable to the works of Herodotus. In that style, it was permissible to move chronological events around for the benefit of the narrative. That's not inaccuracy, that's a stylistic choice, and I'd prefer to view the Gospels that way than trying to go through the mental backflips required by the alternative (having Jesus cleanse the Temple twice, for example). Historians don't have a problem using this to reconstruct events, and again, it doesn't mean the texts aren't divinely inspired.

 

If you want more on these topics you can probably search out the novels I've written on this site on textual criticism, Biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Jesus, and so on.

 

Carry on.

[Zguy28]

49 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There are considerably more rules and verses regarding support for slavery then there is for abolitionism.  I would not the "used the bible to say stop slavery" without passages in the OT to show that.  Far as i can tell, slavery was normal in biblical times, Jewish slaves to this early Jews treated better then non-Jews (those are actual rules in the bible, post-Exodus from Egypt)

 

 

If any early Jews were against slavery enough to try to stop it, there's no indication they were anything more then a minority.

I would look at Paul's letter to Philemon. While Paul doesn't outright denounce slavery in the Roman Empire, you can detect his disapproval of Philemon owning slaves in an undercurrent.

 

As far as Mary Magdelene, I think she was a great woman and one of Jesus's key disciples. She is not listed as an Apostle. It doesn't say she was a prostitute either. That is a tradition started probably by a Pope. Hence, why we need to not value tradition equally with holy Scripture.

37 minutes ago, techboy said:

3. There's nothing wrong, per se, with a literal and strict interpretation of divine inspiration, but I'd caution against making it a central tenet of the faith, which certainly isn't supported by the Biblical texts themselves (in that you must believe it to be saved). There are many stories of people elevating a strict Biblical literalism to a central idea, then falling away from the faith when they couldn't make it work. Bart Ehrman is a very famous example of this... He's a fantastic scholar, and he just couldn't reconcile his simplistic and unrealistic view of Biblical inerrancy with his scholarly work, and rather than adjust his viewpoint on inerrancy, he tossed the whole thing.

My professor on New Testament at Seminary called this "folk inerrancy" which falls apart when confronted by the any difficulty with the text.

[London Kev]

I'm late to the party and just voted that I'm an atheist.

 

I am a little surprised by the number of non-religious people on here who have also voted. A big difference that I've noticed over the years between English and American sports is how often God is thanked, either for the win or for their physical abilities (I have never heard God being blamed for a loss or an injury). I just assumed that most people in America believed in a god, while most people in England either do not, or don't talk about it.

 

I look at the concept of a god to be an easy way to explain some the the eternal questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens when we die? etc. Hard questions to answer, especially to children.

 

When I was a child, I was told that a stork brought my baby brother to us, Father Christmas brought us presents, the tooth fairy took (and paid for) our teeth, and that people go to heaven when they die. I obviously believed these things because my parents told me so.

As I got older of course, people started to say that these things weren't exactly true, and the reality didn't really match the stories, but they were comforting at the time.

 

I have no problem with people who believe in different things than me, in fact a world full of people with my exact mindset would be a very scary place. I do find it hard to grasp exactly why people believe in religion, when to me it is obviously not real and is unnecessary. I see no point in it other than stories for children.

 

I have a "normal" sized group of friends, acquaintances, colleagues, etc, and as far as I know not one of them believes in a religion. Most of us would be described (I hope) as good people with good morals. I do find it a bit irksome when someone is described as a church-goer or God-fearing as somehow this proves their wholesomeness.

 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm not anti-religion, I'm just non-religion, it seems unnecessary.

 

I think that this is the most times that I've said the words god or religion in like forever!

Edited September 20, 2018 by London Kev

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

I would look at Paul's letter to Philemon. While Paul doesn't outright denounce slavery in the Roman Empire, you can detect his disapproval of Philemon owning slaves in an undercurrent.

 

That's his disapproval, he's not only person in the bible.  That doesn't address how prevalent it was, regardless of how anyone felt, it wasn't until 1800 years later you really started to see Christians really get behind abolishinism.

 

Quote

As far as Mary Magdelene, I think she was a great woman and one of Jesus's key disciples. She is not listed as an Apostle. It doesn't say she was a prostitute either. That is a tradition started probably by a Pope. Hence, why we need to not value tradition equally with holy Scripture.

 

That's my point they tried to shame her out if relevancy, so why are you co-signing to her irrelevancy?  Women were just as much involved in early Christianity in the city as men until Rome made it the official religion and their feelings on sexism started to take over the movement.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Renegade7

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just checking in to see if anyone found the G spot in their ass yet.

[bearrock]

30 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Just checking in to see if anyone found the G spot in their ass yet.

 

Those lucky ****s aren't wasting their time posting in this thread

[Renegade7]

45 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Just checking in to see if anyone else found the G spot in their ass yet.

I knew you wouldn't let us down.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

45 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I knew you wouldn't let us down.

I actually thought about coming back and editing that into my post ?

[Renegade7]

@London Kev if you don't understand why people bother with this and think its just stories for children, i recommended reading the rest of the thread (if you haven't already).

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

3 hours ago, London Kev said:

I have no problem with people who believe in different things than me, in fact a world full of people with my exact mindset would be a very scary place. I do find it hard to grasp exactly why people believe in religion, when to me it is obviously not real and is unnecessary. I see no point in it other than stories for children.

 

This seems a little contradictory. If you claim to be an atheist, yet view a world full of atheists as dangerous (something I do not, as somewhere between agnostic-atheist), then it would seem to me, that you would/should view religion instead as a necessary evil, not entirely unecessary, no?

 

Or maybe I am misinterpreting that and you're speaking in a broader sense?

[London Kev]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

This seems a little contradictory. If you claim to be an atheist, yet view a world full of atheists as dangerous (something I do not, as somewhere between agnostic-atheist), then it would seem to me, that you would/should view religion instead as a necessary evil, not entirely unecessary, no?

 

Or maybe I am misinterpreting that and you're speaking in a broader sense?

Yeah, I was talking about beliefs in general. My ex was really into astrology, my brother believes in ghosts, some people believe in religion. I personally don't think any of those things are real, but each to their own.

 

I am glad that everyone doesn't think like me, I mean I could be wrong about any of them, but the "scary place" bit was meant to be slightly comical (obviously failed ), as in - a world full of me's would be scary.

 

I do think

[Renegade7]

There's a place for religion in our world, even in a more limited basis.  No place for these preists raping kids, rejection of science, untaxed megachurches, hateful Westboros of the world, groups like ISIS, etc.  As we are imperfect, so is every aspect of who we are, what we do and what we believe.

 

But I have faith we can do better then what we are doing right now.  I have a lot to learn and understand, we all do.  The fact we've made it this far in this thread with this many differing opinions gives me hope in what we are capable of on this topic when we listen in these conversations versus constantly trying to win them.

[London Kev]

51 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@London Kev if you don't understand why people bother with this and think its just stories for children, i recommended reading the rest of the thread (if you haven't already).

 

 

I haven't, but I will.

 

I never said that I don't understand why people bother, if people find comfort in it, then that's great. But it's the actual existence of a god that I just don't understand. To me it makes no sense, Like I said, I will read the whole thread and maybe gain some insight.

[Renegade7]

21 minutes ago, London Kev said:

 

I am glad that everyone doesn't think like me, I mean I could be wrong about any of them, but the "scary place" bit was meant to be slightly comical (obviously failed ), as in - a world full of me's would be scary.

 

I do think

 

I guess that begs the question,how would the world look if everyone was atheist?  Not a fan, sure people say some make decisions worried about the afterlife, imagine a world where no one is worried about that anymore.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Renegade7

[Mr. Sinister]

I think there would definitely be less overall chaos (less wounds throughout the world caused by the ripple effects of religious persecution/conquest) where everyone would be of the same belief, in that regard. It would be a more peaceful world. How peaceful, there's no way to know. It is in man's nature to be tempted/prone to corruption, etc.

 

It could be just the same, just with the absence of religion, and some other belief/flaw in humanity being used to separate us.

 

In my heart though, I believe the world would be a better place without religion.

[Renegade7]

I guess in my eye it's hard for me to go with the idea of a society that can't rid itself of the worst things about religion and that somehow a Athiest secular society can remove the worst things about itself in the same breath.  Religion at its core talks about faith to get through the worst of the times and looking out for one another.  Without religion, we'll rely more on philosophy to help formulate our belief systems (oh, we will believe in something, the question is what?), and not all philosophies are created equal (if you've ever had an ethics class). We could very well just replace religious fundamentalism with a more extreme version of hyperpartisainship, a way for people of like minds to still group together and demonize people who disagree with them.  What I'm saying is religion by itself isn't the real problem in that case, we are.

 

In an ideal world we all agree on what's right and wrong, but we won't.  Utopia isn't going to happen, what we want and what we fear we'll always land somewhere in the middle.  Gotta wonder if we all did become atheist, does that mean we all give up on the idea of spirits, supernatural, metaphysical, astrology, that balance and become more robotic, detached from anything that can't be proven via scientific method?  There's a lot of directions we can go as a society without religion, I just don't think its necessary to achieve the means that many aspire in their vision of that world, much like you don't need Socialism to make achievements in Social Democracy.  

 

There are some countries in Scandinavia that are starting look like the model of what a post-religion world might look like.  They also have an incredible welfare system.  How would that work in countries that are third world or overrun by a different type of extremism?  

Edited September 20, 2018 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

yikes, stuck on 666 replies, can't be having that, lolz

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

What I'm saying is religion by itself isn't the real problem in that case, we are.

 

 

 

Good points, and on this one in particular something I've echoed in the past, which I guess boils it down to eliminating one of man's most powerful tools, or man himself. True, without religion, there is still the racial component, gender component, class (probably most important in the earlier centuries), and the yearning for power that exists in the heart of man. And even though the world could potentially be further ahead overall in terms of all things scientific, there's no denying that times were hard, and many people used (and still use) religion to get them through it. 

 

It is definitely hard to predict how things could go considering all of this , but for now, to me, it seems as though there is no equivalent to doing something in the name of God... having that kind of conviction, being guided by an all powerful force, and being rewarded for your service with an eternity in paradise, and I think it is where man is easily led astray, through misinterpretation and manipulation.

 

But it is true that the flaw would remain, and if I am to think about this correctly, I would have to think harder about a world where it never existed, vs a world where it is simply removed. 

 

As for how this would work in underdeveloped/war torn countries, I have no idea, as I would have to wrestle with the role religion/religious conquest played in many countries rising to the point where they decided to raid other continents for their natural resources. Seems to almost be directly tied in some ways, and therefore hard to answer.

 

It's all left me with a lot to mull over though

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I guess that begs the question,how would the world look if everyone was atheist?

Pretty close to the same as it is now.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Pretty close to the same as it is now.

Atheism isn't the same as Agnostic.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

Atheism isn't the same as Agnostic.

I understand that. I just don’t think society would be much different.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

It's all left me with a lot to mull over though

 

 

Same.  Given our country was founded on the idea of people being given God-given inalienable rights, I'm not sure what a world where religion never happened happened.  I don't see cavemen going straight into scientific method to explain things.

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I understand that. I just don’t think society would be much different.

That's very debatable, but I'ma need to come back to that.

[DCSaints_fan]

On 9/20/2018 at 9:44 AM, techboy said:

I3. There's nothing wrong, per se, with a literal and strict interpretation of divine inspiration, but I'd caution against making it a central tenet of the faith, which certainly isn't supported by the Biblical texts themselves (in that you must believe it to be saved). There are many stories of people elevating a strict Biblical literalism to a central idea, then falling away from the faith when they couldn't make it work. Bart Ehrman is a very famous example of this... He's a fantastic scholar, and he just couldn't reconcile his simplistic and unrealistic view of Biblical inerrancy with his scholarly work, and rather than adjust his viewpoint on inerrancy, he tossed the whole thing.

 

 

That's not my understanding of what happened with Ehrman, I thought he liberalized his views for a while before becoming totally secular.

[techboy]

12 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

That's not my understanding of what happened with Ehrman, I thought he liberalized his views for a while before becoming totally secular.

 

It's not really relevant to my overall point, but being me, I looked it up, and you're right... He says it was a more gradual process, so I must have misremembered something.