axel Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Why rules? Because we all know that one’s freedom ends where another one’s begins. Why do you agree to follow rules Sasun? Why do you stop at red lights? The same goes for morality. The belief “treat others like you want to be treated” is a social construct, realized for the survival and the betterment of a society. This has nothing to do with religion. So, to answer your question of “why must we be good?” the plain answer is that it’s good for the society, and thus it is good for the individual, since every individual is also part of the society. Anoushik, would you do (what you consider as) evil if you had the insurance you would not to suffer from the consequences? if not, why? Of course, do not answer "for the good of society" for I will ask, why is the good of society desirable if it doesn't affect you, your "rights", your "desires" and your "fulfillment" as a pleasure-driven "social animal"..., as is implied by the question) PS: Already asked this question to our very own Weakest Link and soya licking champion btw, whose brilliant mind, I must say, blinded me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 The sole valid moral criterion is Love and that is precisely what is lacking in your very "rational" arguments. And it is no wonder for Love is not "rational". Reason in your sense (ie in the enlightenment sense) is just the egocentric pursuit of self-interest, egoism and the "good of society" of society is just perceived as the optimized satisfaction of all self-interests. Nauseating. Makes me think of Aldus Huxley's brave new world. Outdated Sci-Fi, you might say. I would agree, for it has become reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Anoushik, indeed you didn't prove that morality is rationally achieved. I don't believe anyone can prove. One stops at the red light for different reasons, reasons could be not to get a ticket, not to be struck by another car and injured, as well as not to run over a pedestrian. There are different reasons and motivations in the society, both selfish and unselfish. Rules that are selfish cannot be morality, rules that are unselfish can be morality. The red light cannot be considered as morality since it does not necessarily imply selfless act on part of drivers. What you are saying is that the society must have rules so everyone can be happy because they are interdependent. This is a perfect case of selfish thinking. If the ultimate goal is the individual's selfish happiness then there is every reason for everyone to get rid of everyone else in the society who happens to compete with them. And what about other societies? Is it allowed to bomb another society which is geographically far away to benefit your own society? Let's say the good of that other society is never the good of your own, so you are interested that they die as soon as possible leaving their wealth and land to your society. You will never receive any benefit from them. So tell me please, should your society wage a war against this other society and defeat them? And as rational people the first society will surely think that they would be better off not killing the enemy but making them slaves so they could produce more benefits for their society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 But I'd like to know how you explain according to religion why humanity must survive. There are various ways one can say, depending on religion, and all of them have to do with God. (I am not sure about Buddhism though). My answer is, humanity must survive because it is God's intention that His Kingdom must come to the earth. Every human being should realize God and manifest God on earth, each one of us has a purpose which we have forgotten. That is the ultimate goal of humanity that each human being knows himself/herself and manifest God. We are divine beings having human experiences on earth but we don't realize that. Once we realize it we will have conscious onenness with God. Before we realize it we will have a lot of confusion like we do now, and a lot of suffering. Many things could be said on the subject, but I think you get the point now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 So should we really follow God's commandments...here is a story of those who did...etc http://www.randomhouse.com/features/krakauer/ and this review - for Sasun in particualr.. http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/u/...of-heaven.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Taking the Bible literally... http://www.gracecathedral.org/church/sermo..._20021110.shtml (note this is in real audio)...following link provides an excerpt of the text): http://www.dean-justinspoliticaljournal.ca...e_ridiculed.htm came accross this winner...perhaps we should do a poll... I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."---Former President George Bush speaking of we should perhaps discuss the pledge of allegience rulling eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Armat, instead of playing chess and gardening, you should post more often this type of stuff Seriously, I admire Buddha's teachings and would like to learn more Sas jan, my knowledge on the subject is limited but would recommend reading anything by Allan Watts on the subject of Zen and Buddhism and my fave One Arrow, One Life: Zen, Archery, Enlightenment by Kenneth Kushner Gardening is part meditation for me so in fact it is zen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Anoushik, would you do (what you consider as) evil if you had the insurance you would not to suffer from the consequences? if not, why? No, if I consciously understood that it is evil I would try as much as possible to avoid doing evil. Even if I were not to suffer the consequences I know that another person had to pay for my evil actions and I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that. But Axel, it's just the way I've been brought up in my family. This has nothing to do with religion. I'm an atheist and my family is not religious (even though my dad hates the idea that I accept there is no God). But we were never taught to be good to others because God is watching and will reward or punish us. We were just told constantly to try to put us into another person's shoes and look at the world from their perspective. The sole valid moral criterion is Love and that is precisely what is lacking in your very "rational" arguments. Love of what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 There are different reasons and motivations in the society, both selfish and unselfish. Rules that are selfish cannot be morality, rules that are unselfish can be morality. Let's say I agree that rules that are unselfish can be morality. But what are you really talking about? I don't understand. If one is trying to be moral and act morally because of religion it already shows you that his actions are already motivated because of selfish reasons. He is trying to be moral because of God's reward in the future. This shows you that religion clearly has nothing to do with morality. And Sasun, I wanted to know why you stop at the red light not for the obvious reasons that you don't want a ticket but why there exists a red light in the first place? Who cares, right? We should all do as we please and if I don't want to stop at the red light I won't stop, right? It's not like God created human beings with specific instructions to how to make social rules and follow them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) Let's say I agree that rules that are unselfish can be morality. But what are you really talking about? I don't understand. Hmm... I don't understand what you don't understand If one is trying to be moral and act morally because of religion it already shows you that his actions are already motivated because of selfish reasons. He is trying to be moral because of God's reward in the future. Well, you are minsunderstanding religion just like many religious people do. One must not act in certain ways because of promised reward, or out of fear of punishment. The role of religion in morality is to establish what is right and what is wrong. Once you know what is right and believe in it, you as a true religious person do the right things. Such moral actions are unselfish actions. That means one has to put his self after other things, duties, poor people, etc... so how is it selfish I don't understand? Axel has made a very good post above. Why do devoted religious people follow Christ's teachings? Not out of fear, and not because of a promised reward. They don't really think about such things. Their only motivation is pure, selfless Love for God, love for Jesus. There is no reason, no expectation from this love. It is just love for the sake of love. Unless you understand it I am afraid you will always misunderstand what really religion is about. This shows you that religion clearly has nothing to do with morality. Let me tell you that you could not be more wrong. Just study a little the history of religions, all morality that existed in all societies came from religions. Very often relision and morality were identical. Even what you call a humanistic morality came from religious teachings. It was not taken directly but rather indirectly. (And as far as I can see, we have already established that such morality did not come from rational thinking.) Non-religious people consciously or uncosciously have taken some elements and given their own flavor and call it "rational" humanistic morality. And Sasun, I wanted to know why you stop at the red light not for the obvious reasons that you don't want a ticket but why there exists a red light in the first place? Who cares, right? We should all do as we please and if I don't want to stop at the red light I won't stop, right? It's not like God created human beings with specific instructions to how to make social rules and follow them. I don't know what exactly you mean. I didn't say that God has given us specific instructions. God has given us various guidlines which we know as religions and spiritual practices that are advisable (and very important) to follow, and has given us free will to follow or not. Edited June 16, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 No, if I consciously understood that it is evil I would try as much as possible to avoid doing evil. Even if I were not to suffer the consequences I know that another person had to pay for my evil actions and I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that. Why would not you be able to live with yourself? If another person suffers what does it have to do with you? Does that suffering bother you? Is there a supernatural connection between you and this other person who would suffer? I, a rational computer, cannot understand this. Am I missing data? This reminds me something, could it be moral responsibility that religious people are supposed to have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Sasun, now I realize that it's incredibly hard trying to communicate about such difficult subjects as religion over the internet - I have so many thoughts and yet I am unable to clearly articulate what I think and how I feel about this subject. It's sad, really. So I guess I'll just stop here... Just one more thing, though... Why do you insist that only religious people are supposed to have moral responsibilty? Yes, the suffering of another person bothers me because I don't want to see another fellow human being suffer. This doesn't mean that I'm religious. And this has nothing to do with God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) No Anoushik - you are doing great. You can't help that certain religious people are so closed minded and unthinking that they can't accept that others see things differently (and just as legitimatly) then they and that perhaps their immagined view of reality isn't by definition the correct one - etc...sad but true... To claim that there is no morality unless it is tied into some religion is just an absurd statement. It presuposes that we are all children...among other things...and denies the fact that people are fundementally good and do care about one another and not just themselves. Edited June 16, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Why do you insist that only religious people are supposed to have moral responsibilty? You see, I did not say that. Everyone should have moral responsibility. I just pointed out how similar your feelings are to what religion is suggesting to have. You do not have to be religious to do the right thing. It just shows that, contrary to atheist beliefs, religion is not imposing some artificial rules that are alien to human beings. And this has nothing to do with God. Everything has to do with God, whether or not you believe it. In your case, you are following your conscience and not believing in God. But your conscience is the voice of God metaphorically speaking. In other words, God would have said the same thing had you been able to listen to him. Anoushik, may I suggest that your thoughts are not clear on the subject. The reason could be that you are biased and prejudiced against religion, God and things like that. There maybe a good reason for that in your background but that is not correct. In my humble opinion, the best thing in your position is to be a perfect agnostic: just say that you do not know anything and try to learn with your own mind, don't take anything granted and question everything that you feel is not right. Of course, you would do that if your goal is to learn. It seems to me that mostly you wish to learn rather than prove that God doesn't exist. Some people mindlessly argue contradicting themselves and resorting to dishonesty all the time pretending that did not happen. Even a second is not worth wasting on this type of argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Some people mindlessly argue contradicting themselves and resorting to dishonesty all the time pretending that did not happen. Even a second is not worth wasting on this type of argument. yes of course...look I can respect your choices - but you and others continually put down those who do not believe and act as if it is some sort of defficiency - and it is not. I have been making strong and consistent arguments - regardless of what you say. Your unwilingness to really address the real and serious issues I raise seems as if you are afraid to examine alternatives to your belief system. Your claim that I am "not worth the time" and that I don't know what I'm talking about is just a sign of weakness on your part. But I really don't care - do as you wish. But I've personally had it with others who continually put down atheism/agnostiscim and such and who claim to know all truth and that any who disagree are damned and ignorant or what have you and I will continue to make my arguments to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 people are fundementally good Mais oui, Jean-Jacques, "Man is good". "It is society that corrupts him" (not to mention religion). And please do not try to pretend that society originates from Man. It doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Society does contain man as well as other biological forms of life bound together with one or more common ideas, diverse religions, cultures, common cause (in this case humans being example). Although I agree society does not originate from man, but also it’s very hard to imagine one without man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 And please do not try to pretend that society originates from Man. It doesn't. I guess your right...its all the bacteria...they are controlling everything...we are just the hosts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) My apologies. I was being sarcastic. I should have guessed that THOTH' enlightened mind would not be able to see the spirit behind the letter. Edited June 16, 2004 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 You do not have to be religious to do the right thing. It just shows that, contrary to atheist beliefs, religion is not imposing some artificial rules that are alien to human beings. Yes, I agree. I never said that religion is imposing rules that are alien to humans. How could it since religion is invented by man? Everything has to do with God, whether or not you believe it. Well, and I say nothing has to do with God, whether you believe it or not. You're so sure of yourself that you are the one who's biased. In your case, you are following your conscience and not believing in God. But your conscience is the voice of God metaphorically speaking. In other words, God would have said the same thing had you been able to listen to him. This is absurd. I don't believe this. Just because you do doesn't mean this is real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Yes, I agree. I never said that religion is imposing rules that are alien to humans. How could it since religion is invented by man? I see a contradiction here. Religion says that one should not hurt others. You say that one should not hurt others. (If I ask you why you will not be able to answer)You seem to agree with religion at least on this question, but you reject religion. How can it be? You say that religion is invented by man. What about the principle of not hurting others? Did you not invented a mini-religion for yourself? Where did this come from? Well, and I say nothing has to do with God, whether you believe it or not. You're so sure of yourself that you are the one who's biased. I think I am being reasonable rather than biased, if you follow a simple example you will see what I mean. Suppose I am standing in a dark room sick of it, without any knowledge. There are two men saying different things and I wish to learn from them if I can. One man (we may call him Toto for convenience) has lived in a dark room all his life and tells me that there is no such a thing as light. The other man (we can call him Bobo) says he lived in a dark room for a long time, but he was looking to get out of there. Finally he found a door and came out of the room to see that there is so much light out there that one cannot even explain it. Toto yells at Bobo and tells me that Bobo is nuts and I should not listen to him. Bobo tells me he knows the truth and there indeed exists a door leading to a place with much light. At this point I am willing to inquire more to find out which one of them is correct. I request Toto to provide proof that there is not light, Toto tells me that he has not seen any light and that is his proof. I request Bobo to provide me proof that there is light. He says that he has seen the light and that is his own proof. He says he does not know if his proof will serve me a real proof but he can surely tell me where and how to find the door which leads to light. If I do it I will see the light myself and have my own proof. Toto jumps in and tells me not to listen to Bobo because he is nuts. He tells me he doesn't believe in Bobo at all, but even if Bobo is right and there indeed is light then one can get burned in that light, or turn nuts like Bobo did. But anyway he doesn't believe in such light. So Toto tells me I would be better off to stay in the dark like himself. Well, I have to make a choice because I am really uncomfortable to stay in this dark place, so after some pondering I conclude that Bobo has knowledge and is offering me a reasonable choice, while Toto is ignorant and doesn't really offer anything else than staying in darkness. I would be better off following Bobo and finding that door. Toto tells me I am nuts too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 I see a contradiction here. Religion says that one should not hurt others. You say that one should not hurt others. (If I ask you why you will not be able to answer)You seem to agree with religion at least on this question, but you reject religion. How can it be? non argument - does not require religion. If one can come to this conclusion without religion then what is the value added? Rejecting religion has nothing to do with this argument. I believe that Mormans would agree that you shoulnd't hurt others? If you agree - then why aren't you a Morman? Or could it be that there are other facotrs about Mormanism - and what Mormans believe that you disagree with. Some holds true for being Muslim - how can you reject the prophet Mohammed and all that he and his followers claim you muct believe. I can go on... You say that religion is invented by man. What about the principle of not hurting others? Did you not invented a mini-religion for yourself? Where did this come from? No need for a religion to explain the obvious. Religion might be useful for codefying a set of moral belifs and such and for explaining what might not be known or perhaps even knowable (for those who need such hand holding). Oh and spirituality is not the same thing as religion - though again it is concerned with making sense of the unknown and (perhaps) allows internalizing of concepts - converting them from words to actual feeling etc...and there is nothing wrong with this. The world ia a wonder... And your Toto/Bobo example - well it doesn't at all exaplin anything in regards to religion. I think we have agreed in past arguments that basically religion relies on faith and is not provable. So a more acurate parable would concern Bobo telling us that if Toto jumps off a cliff - and only believes in the God of anti-gravity that he will not fall. Well I have some advice for Toto.... And Sasun claims that he will follow Bobo's suggestion because it seems a reasonable choice...well there are many possible resonable choices etc - some are perhaps correct and others are not...and what may seem reasonable or acceptable to one person may not be such to another. It may seem resonable to me to believe that Aliens created us by genetically manipulating ape creatures and that we were put on this Earth in order to grow food and mine and stockpile gold (to be left as offerings) - and that if we do these (reasonable) things well then the Aliens will take care of us and give us reward. Well - I may believe this - and certain signs may suggest that indeed this be true - and it does seem resonable to suppose I guess - as good as anyting else...but should I turn this into an entire belief system? - working towards this end - mining and stockpiling gold, berating others for not doing so (how can they not see! etc - and my they are sure to be punished...)...and persecuting others for not believeing in such....well you get the picture i think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Natural Selections from Uncle Ed's Holy Book With regard to the gods I know not whether they exist or not or what they are like. Many things prevent our knowing; the subject is obscure, and brief is the span of mortal life. - Protagoras My philosophy remains Transcendental Agnosticism. There are realities and intelligences greater than conditioned normal consciousness recognizes, but it is premature to dogmatize about them at this primitive stage of our evolution. We've hardly begun to crawl off the surface of the cradle-planet. - Robert Anton Wilson The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. - Eric Hoffer All great religions in order to escape absurdity, have to admit a dilution of agnosticism. It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent [or American T.V. screen], who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely. - H. L. Mencken We have infinite trouble in solving [natural and] man-made mysteries; it is only when we set out to discover "the secret of God" that our difficulties disappear. - Mark Twain (at the top of his sarcastic form) Every other sect supposes itself in possession of the truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong. Like a man travelling in foggy weather they see those at a distance before them wrapped up in a fog, as well as those behind them, and also people in the fields on each side; but near them, all appears clear, though in truth they are as much in the fog as any of them... In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the want of it. - Benjamin Franklin I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. - Wilson Mizner An evangelical Christian once told me, "Only Jesus Christ can save Man..." (What about Woman, I wondered? Oh, well, one does not expect semantic sophistication from literalist Bible believers) "... and restore him to his lost state of peace with God, himself and others." Yeah, sure, and only new Pepsi can make you feel really happy, and only our brand is better than the competition, and only our country is the best country. It is truly amazing to me that people can utter such arrogant nonsense with no humor, no sense of how offensive they are to others, no doubt or trepidation, and no suspicion that they sound exactly like advertisers, con-men and other swindlers. It is really hard to understand such child-like prattling. If I were especially conceited about something (a state I try to avoid, but if I fell into it...), if for instance I decided I had the best garden or the handsomest face in Ireland, I would still retain enough common sense to suspect that I would sound like a conceited fool if I went around telling everybody those opinions. I would have enough tact left, I hope, to satisfy my conceit by dreaming that other people would notice on their own that my garden and/or my face were especially lovely. People who go around innocently and blithely announcing that they belong to the Master Race or the Best Country Club or have the One True Religion seem to have never gotten beyond the kindergarten level of ego-display. Do they have no modesty, no tact, no shame, no adult common sense at all? Do they have any suspicion how silly their conceit sounds to the majority of the nonwhite nonChristian men and women of the world? To me, they seem like little children wearing daddy's clothes and going around shouting, "Look how grown-up I am! Look at me, me, me!" There are more amusing things than ego-games, conceit and one-upmanship. Really, there are. I suspect that people stay on that childish level because they have never discovered how interesting and exciting the adult world is. If one must play ego-games, I still think it would be more polite, and more adult, to play them in the privacy of one's head. In fact, despite my efforts to be a kind of Buddhist, I do relapse into such ego-games on occasion; but I have enough respect for human intelligence to keep such thoughts to myself. I don't go around announcing that I have painted the greatest painting of our time; I hope that people will notice that by themselves. Why do the people whose ego-games consist of day-dreaming about being part of the Master Race or the One True Religion not keep that precious secret to themselves, also, and wait for the rest of the human race to notice their blinding superiority? - Robert Anton Wilson Love can lead to devotion, but the devotion of the lover is unlike that of the True Believer in that it is not militant. I may be surprised - even shocked - to find that you do not feel as I do about a given book or work of art or even person; I may very well attempt to change your mind; but I will finally accept that your tastes, your loves, are your business and not mine. The True Believer knows no such restraints. The True Believer knows that he is simply right, and you are wrong. He will seek to convert you, even by force, and if he cannot he will, at the very least, despise you for your unbelief. - Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands People need religion like they need a lift in their shoe. If it makes them feel a little taller and happier about themselves, fine. But if you keep that lift in your shoe all the time, as you walk, jog, play sports, etc., you can wind up sore, or maybe even crippled...And, PLEEEEASE, let's not send folks to other countries to nail lifts onto the natives' feet! - George Carlin I'm not offended by Pagan, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, or Atheist viewpoints in fiction. Or in non-fiction, for that matter. I may disagree - but I'm almost certain to disagree with any author at some point. To anyone who equates disagreement with hatred, I say, "Bosnia!" - Gene Wolfe (award winning Sci-Fi author) During my life I have made countless friends by arguing - I am a Northerner living in the South, a Jew in the most Gentile community on the continent, an integrationist among white supremacists. I have a lot to argue about. But I have made friends over discussing a difference of opinion because I make my mind up about what I believe, but I do not make my mind up about people. - Harry Golden, columnist who wrote during the 1940s to 1960s in the Southern U.S. What is the best book in the world? I'd say that even the best book remains a mere book, and not life itself. Even the best book is one that can eventually bore you, if only through repetition. Be open to the best in every person, every experience and every book, and use your better judgment, built upon a lifetime of your own experiences. Books are not life, and cannot lead your life for you. You must decide. Even Bible believers have to decide which passages in Scripture deserve greater emphasis than others. And if an action commends itself to your conscience you don't need a book to also tell you whether it is "good" or not. - E. T. Babinski Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx Do you believe that the God who "created your mind" with it's exceeding curiosity (well, maybe not your mind), and its ability to ask the most fascinating questions of nature, art, beauty, science, etc., would also want to absolve us of having to think by giving us a so-called "perfect book" that must never be deeply questioned? - E. T. Babinski (in an internet discussion with a Bible believer) Either god should have written a book to fit my brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book. The inspiration of the Bible depends on the credulity of him who reads. - Robert Ingersoll Ever notice the way that preachers of "ye olde tyme religion" drag out the pronunciation of the name of their favorite holy book, calling it the "Buy-Bull?" Who buys that bull? Even the Bible tells you not to! "I will accept no bull..." Psalm 50:9 (NASB) "I will take no bull[ock]..." Psalm 50:9 (KJV) "...the rest of the bull - he must take outside..." Leviticus 4:12 (NIV) - E. T. Babinski Read the Bible as you would any other book; think of it as you would any other, use your reasoning ability to ask questions as they naturally arise, just as you would if you were reading another book. And it will eventually dawn on you that the books of the Bible, or at least portions of them, were of strictly human and sometimes barbarian, invention. On the other hand, if you have gazed at the Bible for many years through "theology colored glasses" then you may not be able to detect the many shades and depths of questions visible within the text nor those within your own head and heart as they relate to the text. Because after years of church indoctrination most people don't even realize they have acquired a particular "theological" slant, or that they have been hypnotized by "orthodox" comments made by fellow church goers, and by "orthodox" commentaries on Scripture filled with pious platitudes - commentaries that pass in silence over difficulties, or else that read into the text "orthodox" meanings that are not there. Not only the Bible, but the Muslim's Koran, the Mormon's Book of Mormon, and the Hindu's Bhagavad-Gita, have pious adherents and countless pious commentaries written about them. In courtrooms in India, people are even "sworn in" with their hands on the Gita, not the Bible. And isn't it laughable when two "fundamentalist" commentators cannot agree on the meaning of a verse or group of verses, each commentator insisting that his interpretation is the perfectly natural one God intended? Both commentators agree that God wouldn't bother to write a book unless every chapter and verse in it was relevant to believers like themselves, believers who were being "led into all truth" by the "Holy Spirit." God wouldn't let His words and their meaning get lost in hazy translation, or misconstrued over time, especially not by true believers like themselves, would He? Of course, the history of Christian dogma tells a different story. The controversies that revolve around interpreting the books of the Bible have been around since before certain books were even picked to be in "the Bible." There were many competing interpretations before the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. (to which we owe the invention of "The Trinity"), all the way up to the multitude of different Christian denominations today, and God didn't stop plenty of blood being shed over them. - E. T. Babinski Try as they might to be humble, to avoid the pitfalls of intellectual pride - largely because the Bible tells them to, perhaps - fundamentalists are dogmatic and doctrinalistic because their doctrine of the text forces them to be. They are reading an "inerrant" text. What they read, and therefore by definition what they interpret, must be inerrant. - Kathleen C. Boone, The Bible Tells Them So I don't claim to be inerrant, but I recently received a miraculous vision that showed me exactly how the world will end: It is the year six billion A.D. and our sun is a slowly dying star. But our technology has grown so advanced that we simply move our planet. We head for the Andromeda galaxy and meet another planet headed in the opposite direction. We...play...chicken. E. T. BABINSKI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 No need for a religion to explain the obvious. Religion might be useful for codefying a set of moral belifs and such and for explaining what might not be known or perhaps even knowable (for those who need such hand holding). Oh and spirituality is not the same thing as religion - though again it is concerned with making sense of the unknown and (perhaps) allows internalizing of concepts - converting them from words to actual feeling etc...and there is nothing wrong with this. The world ia a wonder... Completely agree, Thoth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Well, I have to make a choice because I am really uncomfortable to stay in this dark place, so after some pondering I conclude that Bobo has knowledge and is offering me a reasonable choice, while Toto is ignorant and doesn't really offer anything else than staying in darkness. I would be better off following Bobo and finding that door. Toto tells me I am nuts too Nice story Sasun. I think we were discussing religion and not whether God exists or not. However, about God's existence: I don't believe in God. I don't care how many different "light" there may be and how many different ways one can reach those I still wouldn't call the "light" God. In this regard I am comfortable to say that I simply don't know what else might be out there and I'm open to all kinds of possibilities (like multiverse and multiple universe). But I think someone and something only deserves to be called "God" when that being is perfect. You say that religion is invented by man. What about the principle of not hurting others? Did you not invented a mini-religion for yourself? Where did this come from? I don't know where the principle of not hurting others comes from - it might be that both biology and environment affect a person's beliefs. You are aware that some people are shy and some are aggressive and some are musical and some are outgoing, and so on and on. These are all genetic characteristics. So some people might be more concerned about others while some people are just egoists. And we can go back to the beginning of this argument. You say that the principle of not hurting others comes from religion. Most people are religious, yet people always hurt each other and take advantage of each other. Bush is religious. He justified the war in Iraq by stating that he believes God is on his side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.