Religion?

[xssve]

Not so much, actually. Name a few pre-Christian religions with that belief. A few, maybe, not many. Not even the Hebrew religion that Christianity flowed from. Certainly not ones claiming to be agnostic (which was the point of the discussion).

Uh, Hinduism?

Not that many as materialistic about it as Christianity, withe bodily resurrection and all.

Equivocate away.

Most of the stuff they say is in the bible, ain't in the bible, most of the stuff Jesus actually preached against is SOP in organized Christianity.

My yardstick is, if they're concerned about your soul, it's religion, if all they want to talk about is your hole, it's politics.

 

[sr71plt]

Uh, Hinduism?

Not that many as materialistic about it as Christianity, withe bodily resurrection and all.

Equivocate away.

Most of the stuff they say is in the bible, ain't in the bible, most of the stuff Jesus actually preached against is SOP in organized Christianity.

My yardstick is, if they're concerned about your soul, it's religion, if all they want to talk about is your hole, it's politics.

There isn't really an afterlife in Hinduism. You are continually reborn into a new life until at some point you go "poof" and are released. I don't think you'll find a Hindu scholar who will say much about an afterlife in Hinduism or that the poof/release means you'd be a sentient soul floating around anywhere.

That said, the post that prompted me to post has long since been modified.

I don't see where "equivocate" has any relevance here. I don't have any delusions about the Bible myself, but those who believe in that stuff don't really have a choice. If you believe, you believe. It's sort of an all-or-nothing condition.

And if you've ever observed a Tea Party rally, you'll know how easy it is to believe all sorts of claptrap. (I think what some of the nonbelievers have posted here is claptrap too.)

 

[Tio_Narratore]

There isn't really an afterlife in Hinduism. You are continually reborn into a new life until at some point you go "poof" and are released. I don't think you'll find a Hindu scholar who will say much about an afterlife in Hinduism or that the poof/release means you'd be a sentient soul floating around anywhere.

That said, the post that prompted me to post has long since been modified.

I don't see where "equivocate" has any relevance here. I don't have any delusions about the Bible myself, but those who believe in that stuff don't really have a choice. If you believe, you believe. It's sort of an all-or-nothing condition.
And if you've ever observed a Tea Party rally, you'll know how easy it is to believe all sorts of claptrap. (I think what some of the nonbelievers have posted here is claptrap too.)

OK, Pilot, but I will say that I've yet to find a literal believer in the bible who literally believes in all of it; it really seems to be a pick-and-choose sort of thing with the Fundamentalists. And even that depends on a lot of "interpretation."

 

[sr71plt]

OK, Pilot, but I will say that I've yet to find a literal believer in the bible who literally believes in all of it; it really seems to be a pick-and-choose sort of thing with the Fundamentalists. And even that depends on a lot of "interpretation."

That's true to an extent. Where it falls off is to expect a rationality that does not need to be there if belief trumps it. When push comes to shove, you can't believe every word of the Bible is true because, as already pointed out, it's contradictory (starting with those two creation stories and the question of, if we're all descended from Adam and Eve, just who were those woman who married Adam and Eve's sons?). But folks avoid push comes to shove all the time. Belief can and does trump rationality by the simple method of zoning out on anything that you can't explain away. That's the comfortable way. Folks are taking that path all the time. They can and do choose to ignore rationality--and they fall back on a belief that is genuine simply because they refuse to entertain thought of/the possibilities of the alternatives.

Atheists and agnostoics do exactly the same thing in their own little box. It's really the nondoctrinated (which is most of us, on a sliding scale) who can look at it all, see how complex it is, realize they can't get their brain around it all, don't bother to try to wholly fit into an established religion/doctrine, even join a church/religious fellowship for the nonsectarian benefits of such a relationship for environment social reasons, and don't bother trying to indoctrinate others.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Pilot, also, really hates threads in which people discuss issues that impact their identities. He says that they are extremists for thinking about such things. Normal people, he says, don't worry or question.

 

[sr71plt]

Pilot, also, really hates threads in which people discuss issues that impact their identities. He says that they are extremists for thinking about such things. Normal people, he says, don't worry or question.

Thanks for telling me what I think and do, Stella.

Saying people are in the majority isn't claiming that they are normal. (I don't think that supporting selling assault weapons over the counter is "normal" for anyone with at least half a brain either, but Americans haven't been able to reach a majority to do what I think is "normal" on this issue.) On the issue of religion, I think there's an argument for that "opiate" judgment. The whole point of religion, I think, is that people want comfort and assurance. And zoning out on a lot of doubts and alternate views serves that goal.

I can see why you aren't all that interested in the real world. Stella--and that you somehow feel threatened by my views--enough to try to tell me what I think so that you can define it as you wish and then dismiss it. As I was saying, I think that athiests use this "I believe and I will wear blinders to other possibilities" technique as much as the religious and agnostics do. In that vein, I think you're being perfectly "normal."

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, and me, in case anyone is interested (which doesn't bother me one way or the other)? I was raised with a mix of Congregationalist, military chapels, and Methodist attendance and have attended Episcopalian, Anglican, nondenominational, and Scottish Presbyterian churches as an adult (with the church attended depending on what was available where we lived--have also attended nothing for large chunks of time). I'm currently attending a United Methodist Church--for environmentally social reasons (for what it does and the relationships it affords, not for the tenants of the root religion).

I've often suspected I'm primarily a Deist or a Unitarian, but not all that much taken up with it to try to fit my peg into either one of those holes.

And I'm pretty sure I'm not that much different from the majority of other people in the United States, at least.

I don't ignore religion; I've studied it a lot. I even have a published book on it in the mainstream. I basically try not to say I believe something I don't--or dismiss possibilities just because I can't understand them.

And as far as I'm concerned everyone else posting here can "be" whatever you like, in religion terms (and, yes, I see atheism as religion--a religion of rejection and positioned relationship to a concept of god--which is fine with me) too.

I'll only bite when/if you try to tell me what I "have" to believe or what "the only" path is (yours, of course).

 

[xssve]

From the perspective of radical empiricism, belief in a "supreme consciousness" is an empirical fact, even if the existence of this supreme consciousness itself is not empirically demonstrable.

This basically mean that we can only deal with faith itself the cause and effect of those motivated by it, any statement attributing some idea to a supreme consciousness can be dismissed axiomatically: "god says, blah blah", is an empty statement it can only be rephrased as "I believe god says, blah blah".

Simplifies things a bit in semiotic terms, though problematic from a religious perspective, religion, as an institution, exists because of faith, tends to deal in absolutes, and is not comfortable with doubt - doubt being, essentially, the opposite of faith.

Interesting article the other day, arguing that embracing a more liberal theology signals the death knell of religion, as liberalism might itself be defined as a philosophy that accepts doubt.

I see this more as a sign of entrenched Calvinism rather Christianity, since Christianity is much more liberal than Calvinism and always has been.

In most ways, Calvinism is an entirely different religion, passing itself off as Christianity, it's a bait and switch more people should be aware of, given that in the absence of any final word from the "supreme consciousness" we can only define religion as the product of some more human motivation, and human motivation encompasses materialism - sometimes to the point exclusion, as we all have probably experienced.

This is why most organized religion cannot seem to maintain universalism, it always seem to devolve back into exceptionalism, since it's empirical utility is that it provides a focal point for social organization, and the utility of social organization lies largely in it's role as the partitioning agent of material benefit, and materiel benefit (economic value) by it's nature, is never distributed perfectly symmetrically, motive for deceit and materialist avarice.

Re: Calvinism - in Catholicism, pride and greed are mortal sins, lust merely venial, whereas when Calvinists talk about "morality", you can pretty much assume they're talking about sex, as if morality encompasses nothing else.

The soul, whether it can be established as an empirical phenomena or not, serves as the abstract point that divides theology from political-economy, if we define religion as a dialogue about abstract ideals of right and wrong (the soul as corruptible), politics as a purely materialist dialogue.

I hear that term "true religion" bandied about by Christians, I'd kind of like to hear what they might think the qualifying criteria of that might be.

 

[Licia]

The context of true religion, xssve, means faith/love which springs from the soul/heart. I can only assume the notion ties to a previously mentioned piece, 'thoughts originate from the heart -- the thinking organ' (hubs in hose). Perhaps a more fitting snippet: religion is a response to faith.

Interpretation, organization and the human condition contend against the concept of free will. Every human being is subjected to life and death regardless of cultural exposure or (a)theistic viewpoint. Oral stories are a common denominator -- children hear all sorts of stories before they can read or write. Education follows: expression. Choices are made.

Primitive cultures mark their bodies and travel through rites of passage. Early Chrisitians viewed these practices as heretical, diabolical ... pagan. 'Twas a realization failure, methinks. Even if a body houses no tattos or piercings, a body ends up marked by scars or injury. Power was given to the marks which appeared on the body; however, the real power flowed from whatever was inside of the person who wore them ... enter class strata. Realitive/free association -- not a new concept. Strange idea: patent a human reality. Nevermind the regularity, we have discovered spectacles!

~o-o~

Oh, wait a minute, humans learn with visual aids also?! Uhm, last I checked 'twas supposed to be simplistic.

Doubts, questions and discussions are normal operating proceedure; s'how we function. Why people forget is beyond me.

 

[xssve]

Whataya mean, like circumcision?

The technical word for it is hegemony, but under the circumstances I thought the economic term was fitting.

It's all a dialogue, and power is about controlling the dialogue, the story we all tell each other that defines what is right and wrong, what is real and what is not.

It's a dialogue that religion has a place in, but too important to be left to religion alone, or allow anyone in particular, to monopolize.

To important really, to exclude any point of view at all, even if it means more work sorting the wheat from the chaff.

That's work though, and people are lazy.

I've read Genesis a number of times, and it seems to me that in eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve were given the consciousness of good and evil, but the old man left no further instructions as to what was what, it's something we're left to figure out on our own, and that is a complicated dialogue, necessitating question and discussion.

As you say, SOP.

The question then is, is there even a consensus on that - if not, who disagrees and why?

 

[loquere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zUcHu5Ah1g

 

[xssve]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaGXVU2CbNs

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zUcHu5Ah1g

You belie your handle.

 

[PennLady]

I am watching "Bull Durham." Time for the Church of Baseball.

 

[Thefamiliar]

That's true to an extent. Where it falls off is to expect a rationality that does not need to be there if belief trumps it. When push comes to shove, you can't believe every word of the Bible is true because, as already pointed out, it's contradictory (starting with those two creation stories and the question of, if we're all descended from Adam and Eve, just who were those woman who married Adam and Eve's sons?). But folks avoid push comes to shove all the time. Belief can and does trump rationality by the simple method of zoning out on anything that you can't explain away. That's the comfortable way. Folks are taking that path all the time. They can and do choose to ignore rationality--and they fall back on a belief that is genuine simply because they refuse to entertain thought of/the possibilities of the alternatives.

Atheists and agnostoics do exactly the same thing in their own little box. It's really the nondoctrinated (which is most of us, on a sliding scale) who can look at it all, see how complex it is, realize they can't get their brain around it all, don't bother to try to wholly fit into an established religion/doctrine, even join a church/religious fellowship for the nonsectarian benefits of such a relationship for environment social reasons, and don't bother trying to indoctrinate others.

Actually pilot, with this, I can agree. Although, your frustration about it all confuses me.

I might make some angry, but I call it the sheep syndrome, which more or less most humans have. No one likes to feel completely isolated, infact it seems to be dtrimental to our health.

Still today I may be wiccan, tomorrow christian, yet another day aethist, the ability to switch factions, seems to just be too difficult for some. Understanding that its all a mystery and always will be, should make it easy to shake your head and smile. The truth is nothing really matters when all is said and done.

In fact, I re-learned what agnostic really means due to you, and this thread. Its not a bad thing to know. But, if I shall die tomorrow, what would it matter?

Its not worth the frustration. There is only life experience that can free the sheep, and its a scarey place, when there are no fences.

Though, I know...you dont want my 2cents. Perhaps someone else needs it more than you?

 

[Stella_Omega]

No one likes to feel completely isolated, infact it seems to be dtrimental to our health.

Primates are tribal animals. We are no exception...

 

[Thefamiliar]

Primates are tribal animals. We are no exception...

Monkey love...i wish I were a bonobo.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Monkey love...i wish I were a bonobo.

Little hippies!

 

[Thefamiliar]

All conflict should be resolved with sex

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

to xssve

With a definite honourable mention to the familiar re the 'resolve conflicts with sex!' comment...

It conjures up a variety of visions, of course...

There is something peculiarly pausing philosophically about this idea to do with the 'knowledge of good and evil.'

To me, the metaphor of a garden and fruit trees suggests something to do with nurturing and time and seasonality. I think many people make a big mistake assuming the problem is to do with the actual 'knowledge' itself, or the 'prohibition;' whereas the thing that suggests itself to me is that 'knowledge of good and evil' is somewhat akin or even the same thing as wisdom, and wisdom is acquired through time and experience, and humans, being temporal let's say 'creations,' must unfold into wisdom, rather than try to jumpstart into it - which is really, impossible or fraught with great problems.

I can see where this serpent creature, could be construed to have interfered with the process by encouraging something out of its proper time.

Scientists cannot absolve themselves from being human and having human social contexts to deal with, and this 'garden story' does seem to me to have an interesting human philosophical dimension well beyond any concern as to its actual/factual/historical reality. It raises a 'real' point, at least I think so.

Religion, I suppose, is most genuinely something to do with this question about ultimate human wisdom, rather than any concern over whether or not 'god exists' and which god and what 'it' dictates. To which extent I find I can certainly accept a scientific atheist whose ultimate concern is for the general human societal benefit, and who maintains that a way to achieve an optimum situation is via the greatest scientific understanding of everything - provided such a person also accepts that this is going to have to happen over a lot of time, human experience, and also making room for the broadest spectrum of emotional content as primarily valid.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think many people make a big mistake assuming the problem is to do with the actual 'knowledge' itself, or the 'prohibition;'

What the story is about is made extremely clear in the story-- in the Hebrew as well. It's not a parable. If the writers wanted to talk about seasons and such, they would have said so.

Scientists cannot absolve themselves from being human and having human social contexts to deal with, and this 'garden story' does seem to me to have an interesting human philosophical dimension well beyond any concern as to its actual/factual/historical reality. It raises a 'real' point, at least I think so.

Why should that particular story should have more impact than, say, Hansel and Gretel?

The desire to "absolve oneself from being human and having human social contexts to deal with" is something that a lot of people do-- science or not. Fishing, auto mechanics, being the CEO of some huge corporation, any occupation will suffice. Many people use religion as their excuse.

 

[Thefamiliar]

Well seeing as how the bible is something close to 5,000 years old, we will never know if it was truly literal, or philisophical.

The bible is stories of witnesses, not actually first hand accounts from the players of the stories. The first books (old testament) were prophesies. Which is amazing in itself considering they were scattered about the world, not just one prophet, but many. (prophets =psychics if you know history)

Considering the origin of the bible, the authors, and the fact that the world was ignorant of many of the scientific discoveries today, I would tend to agree its intent was teaching through story telling. Open to interprtation.

I heard one such thought, that eating from the tree of knowledge is what leads to judgement. While we were denied the tree of lifr which is the lack of judgement. That perhaps the apocolypse isnt the end of the world, but the last days of judgement, clearing the way for utopia.

Ofcourse its debateable and hard to comprehend...but the bonobos might be ahead of us on this scale. Lol

Even as a child I saw the bible as a story book. Tedious to read, the authors didnt spin great stories, but I often wonder if in 5,000 years someone found say Lord of the rings, if Frodo wouldn't end up the savior of the world.

I am more inclined to believe what I see. Direct experience plays a larger part of shaping my beliefs than the words of another. Thats not to say I need scientific explinations for things of a mystical nature, just that another persons words are always open to interpritation.

Its all different perspectives of the same whole.

 

[loquere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zUcHu5Ah1g

 

[Thefamiliar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zUcHu5Ah1g

Why ia an empty question...get more creative than that.

What would happen if judgements of a social nature were dropped? If there were no right and wrong? If we were allowed to live without fear?

would greed dissapear if we stopped thinking in terms of better? Would it dissapear if we didnt fear not having enough?

What does acceptance and tolerance really take?

I find the aswers to these questions much more intriguing than why is the world the way it is?

 

[wistfall1]

Well seeing as how the bible is something close to 5,000 years old, we will never know if it was truly literal, or philisophical.

According to many reputable researchers, the Old Testament may have begun in David's time, about 1,000 BCE. If so, it's no more than 3,000 years old, however, the whole Old Testament may have been written for the most part during the Babylonian exile. Ezra may tell of his mission, and then in Nehemiah, the Jews may have heard it for the first time in the late 500s or in the 400s BCE. It has been tampered with just as the New Testament has.

Considering the origin of the bible, the authors, and the fact that the world was ignorant of many of the scientific discoveries today, I would tend to agree its intent was teaching through story telling. Open to interprtation.

Again, according to researchers, the Old Testament may have been written to hold the Jewish people together, to give them a national hope as a people. The Jews were, if nothing else, fantastic story tellers, even including a tale of Joshua being set out into a river just as Moses was. The intelligentsia of the Jews in exile in Babylon may well have been the originators of the Old Testament in much the form we have today. The Babylonians were written to have taken the educated, and left the uneducated, thus Ezra in the book of Nehemiah.