Religion-What's the Point?

Post Reply New Topic

i love
Spaghetti

This video deals well with the concepts endorsed by Pascals Wager.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8oAGvFxevw[/youtube]

This sums up my religious views.

"Blasphemy of the so called churches, temples, and mosques; all they seek is ignorance, they maintain ignorance in the name of Jesus Christ, Bhudda, Shankara-Charya, Ram Krishna." -- late yogi Chiranjiva, ex atheist-communist, turned God lover.

I have to agree with the sig of one member, which includes the line "religion destroys spirituality." I prefer the ancient Vedic philosophy, as expressed in the Upanishads, to religion; the content of some of those ancient poems have more in common with Einstein's Law of Conservation and Theory of General Relativity, than they do with religion.

Bible is one of the most mis-interpreted and mis-understood books in the world (talking mainly of the old testament here). There are serious pitfalls to understanding something that was composed in a primitive language, natural-symbol based, very limited vocabulary which required the extensive use of metaphor, and a standardized code table to maintain consistency (not unlike the native American codes used by the code talkers of WWI and WWII) known as the Oral Tradition .

The Romans knew about the Hebrew oral tradition, but did not reveal it to the public; the protestants therefore never knew about it, and perpetuated the Roman pagan spin on the bible. I was raised in a typical protestant sect, Episcopalian; the late character actor Pat O'Brien once said (this was in the days of the Latin mass of Catholicism) "An Episcopalian is just a Catholic who flunked Latin."

Much of the dogma found in formal Christianity contradicts the teachings and portrayed behavior of it's alleged founder; Since the Roman church eventually killed off virtually all the spiritual descendants of Jesus, Peter and the disciples, I don't recognize the formal religion as descended from them, but from "Paul the magic pagan" (here I give him somewhat more credit than is due, but he was the first Roman bureaucrat to stick his finger in the pie, that in my view began the Roman "corporate takeover").

Paul the magic pagan, lived by the sea,
and frolicked in the Autumn mist, in a land called Galilee,
Paul the magic pagan, lived by the sea,
and turned Jesus into a respectable Roman god for you and me!

Jesus is portrayed in the gospels as being not too friendly to the organized religion of his day; he found the priest-craft to be hypocritical, venal and corrupt, called them a bunch of mother F-worders ("Ye are a generation of vipers") and went out and started his own, non-union free church, with scab labor! He is portrayed by John as one who would be intolerant of the religion created in his name: "You will come before me in that day crying "Lord, lord, we have spread the good word in thy name, and done good works in thy name", and I will say "Get away from me you evil doers, I never knew you!"

I like Jesus better than the blasphemous religion created "in his name" (he never spoke in his own name, therefore anyone claiming to do so is full of it). He was a Bhraminic type character, and one can trace some of his teachings back to the Upanishads (they influenced Judaism, early Christianity, and Greek philosophy).

Regards, St. Johnpipe

Napoleon had it down cold. "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich". All the religious BS about a wonderful afterlife and that karma will finally deliver justice is really about the general population that has been royally screwed by the rich and the powerful not get sufficiently pissed off to even the score where it matters which is right here where everything is happening.It costs nothing to gull the poor fools that a girl that's been raped or a guy that has been unjustly imprisoned or some poor home owner has been foreclosed will get his revenge after he's dead. The rich are guffawing on their yachts and executive jets.

What is your recommendation? Generalized violence?

When is the last time a poor person created a firm that provided dozens, or hundreds or thousands of jobs?

ruveyn

I see. Poor people are absolutely stupid, never start a successful business, never get rich, never get pissed off at being screwed. Maybe you do live on a wrong planet.

Religion does not require a belief in the actual existence of a deity, or that deity's actual intervention in the world. Many faithful do believe in a living, active deity, but I do not believe that it is a sine qua non for religious observance.

I am a rational creature, and a humanist. I do not believe in a conscious, active creator. But I still get great value from my religious identity.

Religion provides us with a common framework with which to examine moral and ethical choices. I don't suggest for a moment that religion is necessary to have an moral framework for ethical decision-making, but it does provide some pretty basic guides for life. "That which is hateful to you do not do to others," is a pretty fine moral compass for anyone.

Every religious tradition has inspired some of the greatest creations in the visual arts, music and literature in the world. I don't suggest that religion is necessary to inspire the artist, but it is undeniable that our artistic heritage is richer for the inspiration that is has given.

Morality based on distorted and archaic tribal traditions which religions preserve are amongst the most destructive social values in existence.

Religion did not produce great art, it was the wealthy source for creative artists to finance their ideas. Creativity follows wealth and wealth will always foster the projects of creative people.

When a poor person becomes rich (assuming honest means) you can then crap all over him. Right?

ruveyn

If he joins the vicious sons of b*****s now running the USA, of course.

Disclaimer: this is an attempt to clarify my understanding of points made in a vaiety of threads. It does not necessarily logically fit here.

I am so designed I need to be clear on what I am hearing, so:

Let me see if I properly understand the proposition:

Certain alleged "sacred" writings, including

A the Torah [Samaritans, Karaites, Hassidim, Reformed Judaism, etc.]

B the New Testament [Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Mennonite, etc.]

C the Qur'an [Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, Bektashi, etc.]

not only contain archaic, illogical, improbable and pklain wrong statements on the nature and origin of the universe, but also set forth rules for behavior and attitude which are binding on all adherents of the several institutions based on these writings.

So that logically any "good" Jew, Christian, Muslim and so forth will because of his or her faith hold these often repugnant and sometimes antisocial views and perform these repugnant and sometimes antisocial actions.

And logically if any Jew, Christian Muslim and so forth does not endorse these views or follow these precepts, it is because the believer is ignorant, improperly instructed, or in outright rebellion against the faith he or she claims.

Is this an accurate summary? Please correct any misstatement.

Looks to me like you've fairly adequately summarized many of the views held in these forums, along with some of the false assumptions that go with them. The only assumption I can agree with is "improbable." For example, it's highly improbable that any kind of supreme or superior being can ordinarily forgive an errant creation for its consistently rebellious and hateful behavior toward its creator. It's also improbable that this same creator would willingly sacrifice Himself, directly subjecting Himself to human humiliation, in order to establish a pathway towards eternal salvation for that creation. Further, since the various signs and miracles defy any kind of scientific understanding, they are inherently unlikely to happen. But since we accept that they DID happen, the improbable (unlikely) nature of them amplifies the actions as acts of God.

"Archaic" assumes that human understanding is significantly different now than it was x1000 years ago. People still observe the universe now like they did then. The only thing that has changed is the technology that allows us to see a bit more clearly and investigate a bit more deeply. The mind and the thoughts of that mind are relatively unchanged, and you can read extra-Biblical literature or study ancient laws and customs from any region to figure that out.

Illogical? Depends upon the reasoning mind. To accuse the God of the Bible of being illogical is to fail to understand the mind of God. If you are open to it, you can understand the logic. The failure is in a false assumption that your own, self-centered (literally centered on personal interests, whatever they may be) logic and/or ideology is superior to God's. The problem of human suffering, for example, is too often cited as evidence against God--or if He DOES exist, in their minds, He must be some kind of bully. Once again, the assumption is that there is a better way. Well, there IS a better way than the current condition of the world. The problem is that it is not God's will that is the dominant force in people's lives. Complete subjection to God's will ends in getting closer to the elimination of unnecessary human suffering, but it comes at the cost of self-denial. We can't let go of the "me" factor, which is a central goal of Christian living (we ALL have trouble with this, btw), and thus we have conflict throughout the world. Disease is a symptom of a fallen creation, yet God allows us the means to alleviate pain, cure some diseases, prevent others, and treat some the very best we can in hope of one day eliminating it. As long as one understands that a perfectly wise and all-knowing God is necessarily of a superior mind than that of the creation, it is not difficult at all to see the God's logic in the present world. And I'm not certain that those who whine about the bully God have either come up with a better plan or have themselves actively worked to eliminate suffering or even taken the initiative to help those in real need. Christians know that they don't have to "wait" on God to make things happen.

Nature and origin of the universe? All depends on how you read Genesis. The main point, first and foremost, is that God is responsible for the origins of the universe ("In the beginning, GOD..."). What follows is a logical sequence or order for preparing the earth for a creature intended as the image-bearer of God. The days of creation don't have to be read as being consecutive, only following a specific order. There is also a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which leads one to wonder just how long had "the heavens and the earth" been around before the creation as we now know it. And what exactly happened between verses 1 and 2? The creation really does leave a lot of things open, so all one really needs to be concerned with is that God is responsible for the universe and the creation of human beings, sin entered the world through humanity, God showed mercy to those faithful ones who believed in Him and allowed them to show their obedience in the face of their sinful nature through the establishment of the sacrificial system, and ultimately God gave Himself through the person of Jesus as a final sacrifice not just for His chosen people but for the entire world.

"Rules and behaviors" basically means be peaceful wherever you live and obey the laws (so long as the laws don't interfere with obedience to God and worship of God alone), show the love of God to others by being kind to them, and avoid activities reflective of a sinful life which would interfere with a life of obedience to God. By loving God with all one's being and loving one's neighbor as one's self, one need not fear any "rules" of misplaced values within one's own life. If you read the Bible (New Testament) carefully, you'll notice that there is not really any extensive list of rules to adhere to. We can eat, for example, anything we want as long as we abstain from blood. We should avoid food offered to idols (though this is confusing in a modern-day context. Don't eat at casino restaurants, perhaps?). We should avoid all forms of idolatry. And we should also abstain from sexual immorality. That's basically it, and the rest is simply up to the laws of the nation in which we live.

I'm not sure I see what is repugnant or antisocial about those basic guidelines. I would think that much of proper Christian behavior (summarized as "be kind to others") would be a shared value without regard to culture or religion--a rather human ideal, not just something God and/or Moses just made up one day. I would think if you reject that basic principle, it just makes you a "not nice" person.

What has happened, though, is various religions have gotten caught up in strict, legalistic observances of their holy scriptures. I'm just being honest, here, but I'm familiar enough with the Koran that I can say that you can almost open to any random page and read up on sanctioned violence against unbelievers. The few Moslems I've actually come in contact with really are nice, peaceful people. It is a fascinating dichotomy, I think, between the willing peaceful coexistence with other faiths and the frequent message of the holy book. You can't really find that same dichotomy with the New Testament. What you DO have in Christianity, however, is the selective interpretation of Biblical passages or the complete rewriting of them in order to support whatever agenda there is within the leadership of sects of denominations. We Southern Baptists, for instance, at the very least pay lip-service to prohibitions against consuming alcohol. But any well-informed SBC preacher will tell you that such a strict prohibition is not in the Bible!! ! The Bible only says that moderation is to be observed when consuming alcohol. Paul actually instructs Timothy to "drink a little wine" for health reasons. I forget the exact passage, but there's even an OT writing that calls for young women to drink a little more than usual during a specified time of celebration. The only legit Biblical line of reasoning for abstaining completely is in order for Christians to present themselves in a favorable way around new believers who may have once been prone to excess and won't understand a mature Christian's habits of moderation. Drinking may be misleading to those who are new in the faith. That's it. And what has happened is that the strict teetotalers use their abstaining as a way to show everyone how much holier and more righteous they are than those who do drink. Self-righteous behavior, though, is condemned in the gospels.

I think one significant problem people have with the behaviors and ideas of the religious has to do with some of the silliness of the self-righteous and hypocritical. I think too often those behaviors and feelings are associated with that which makes Christianity what it is, and that it completely false. There have been those of us who have been guilty of egregious crimes, and there will continue to be those in some form or another. But those behaviors are not built upon Biblical teaching. Those kinds of things are built on underlying self-centered motives. If you're concerned with the reality of what Christianity was intended to be, read the gospels and the epistles. What you'll find is that the behaviors we are accused of by unbelievers are actually things even Christ warned against.

The main problem, though, is that those who bring false assumptions against God, Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity are unwilling to acknowledge God in any kind of way. It's easier to rationalize unbelief by demonizing theology, especially Christianity, and the charges against the religion do not hold up against the actual core values of it as expressed in scripture.

Preach it, brother! Amen

So is morality based on new traditions which aggressively cast off religion. The abuses undertaken during the Cultural Revolution were no less destructive to social cohesion than those of fundamentalists. Closer to home, the abuses undertaken by HUAC are equally destructive, depriving many of their livelihoods and their liberty.

It is not religion that is at fault, but tribalism and xenophobia. So long as we continue to band together to put down the outsider it doesn't matter whether we call that person an infidel, a capitalist roader or a communist.

It is entirely possible to be religious without being a xenophobic bigot.



You are conflating creativity with creation. Money will pay for the production of the arts, but money doesn't generally inspire the artist.

Well said. I personally have a love-hate relationship with money, which more often leans towards hate. However, as a musician, I've invested in key pieces of equipment that have made my creative life much easier and no longer feel the need to be so extravagant.

I also look for resources that are in such sparing use that no one misses them when they come up missing, in my case a 3-octave set of Schulmerich handbells. My wife and I have been teaching ourselves (and each other) how to do solo ringing, and my latest compositions and arrangements have been traditional hymns or based on church music. I'm not getting any kind of church "sponsorship" for my work, though. I only do these performances so when someone actually DOES start looking for the bells and can't find them, I can say "oh yeah, we have them, but we're using them next Sunday morning." We're considering the possibility of concert tours, hiring ourselves out for weddings and special occasions, and even saving enough money to buy our own 3-octave set of Malmarks and maybe even break into the world of "academic" music while staying true to our church roots. The number of chamber works for solo bells or bell duets is sadly lacking and restricted to very traditional forms of music. My motivations happen to be spiritual, but I'd be lying if said I didn't honestly believe there's a real need for more use of the medium.

The money DOES do one thing though: It facilitates the production. I'm inspired all the time, but I will admit that its difficult writing music knowing full well I have no way to get performances unless I do them myself. People who are better established in the artistic/creative community have no problems getting grants and so forth. But when they do participate in artist-in-residence types of programs, they know they have future compensation for their work and are doubly motivated to do their best. Without at least the promise of money, it's difficult for me to convince myself that there is ANY kind of reward for what I do.

But...

I still compose anyway. One reason why I've resigned from the local symphony board is because I plan on cooking up some good projects for the orchestra. But I won't be able to get funding from them or regional arts counsels as long as I'm a volunteer board member because they aren't going to take one of their peers quite that seriously. So now I'm about the business of working up the projects FIRST without asking for money, assembling a number of proposals, and eventually presenting those proposals before the board once they are complete. They can help decide what creative direction I should take and negotiate fees accordingly. If I've done a good job, they'll probably ask me back. It's just that working on projects with no real or perceived goal can be disheartening at times.