# Let’s Talk Religion and Faith



## Huntn

I have a long running _Being A Competent Theist _thread over in PRSI, however this  post went into a different thread. If you feel like debating or commiserating, or sharing your outlook here, please jump in. I call myself Agnostic.

These are most religions’ assumptions: God exists, it is focused on us, it punishes and rewards, it frequently grants favors, and the primary hook, it offers the hope of continued consciousness beyond mortal death, hence the attraction.

This does not preclude the existence of God, a God. However, it’s very easy to observe that the Christian/Muslim God as we know it is very much the creation of human beings, it’s characteristics, desires, motivations, moods, hissy fits, all of the human faults we have attributed to this _Supreme Being, _who is equated to possessing unimaginable power/magic, perfect, while not seeming to under the power it wields or possess the insight an _all knowing_ Being should have.

I think if the premise that God exists is accepted, you can legitimately ask, what evidence is there that it is involved in our lives in any way, beyond existing as a figment of our emotions?

More important imo, is the philosophical debate is there a purpose in our lives? In other words does our existence mean anything at all? It can be argued that if our existence is 1-100 years of consciousness, in billions of years, what is the point? No point? This is where you can seek hope, whether it is well founded or not. I want this case of shared consciousness to have meaning, while acknowledging this is a emotional response and has no basis other than the existence of consciousness itself offers the hope of continued consciousness, and that it is not necessarily tied only to a mortal body.


----------



## Alli

I was thinking of this thread as well. I find myself coming away from current events feeling that it confirms there is no god. Would a true god take Ruth Bader Ginsberg and leave Robert Barr? If there is a deity responsible for actions like this, it has a little too much of a sense of absurdity for me.

But I gave up on God (capital G) back when my first husband and I divorced. I had been the observant one, yet he was the one with whom the community sided. Then there was that nasty bout of cancer. I lived through it despite having thrown up no prayer to any god. 

I consider myself a spiritual person now. I hold onto the teachings that I was brought up with, and have been focused lately on “justice, justice shall you pursue.” (צֶ֥דֶק צֶ֖דֶק תִּרְדֹּ֑ף) I want us all to focus on justice and righteous living. Being righteous doesn’t require a god. It requires common sense. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Be good. Do good things. That’s pretty much it.


----------



## Eric

I like to think of myself as more spiritual and definitely more agnostic when it comes to religion. I don't think any just god would ever deliberately condemn people to eternally burning in hell for not worshiping him. A football player thanks god for giving him the strength to score the winning touchdown, yet a child dies a hideous and painful death from cancer, maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere but I just can't reconcile that.


----------



## Alli

ericgtr12 said:


> A football player thanks god for giving him the strength to score the winning touchdown




But that same god didn’t give the opposing team the same strength. Was one team more worshipful than the other? And when you pray for silly things like a team winning, is that the same as praying for the other team’s loss?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ericgtr12 said:


> A football player thanks god for giving him the strength to score the winning touchdown,




The Onion did an article some years ago where a pro football player thanked Jesus and God for giving him the strength to commit a double homicide.  "Jesus was there when we won the big game and he was also there when I plunged that knife into her chest."


----------



## Huntn

Alli said:


> I was thinking of this thread as well. I find myself coming away from current events feeling that it confirms there is no god. Would a true god take Ruth Bader Ginsberg and leave Robert Barr? If there is a deity responsible for actions like this, it has a little too much of a sense of absurdity for me.
> 
> But I gave up on God (capital G) back when my first husband and I divorced. I had been the observant one, yet he was the one with whom the community sided. Then there was that nasty bout of cancer. I lived through it despite having thrown up no prayer to any god.
> 
> I consider myself a spiritual person now. I hold onto the teachings that I was brought up with, and have been focused lately on “justice, justice shall you pursue.” (צֶ֥דֶק צֶ֖דֶק תִּרְדֹּ֑ף) I want us all to focus on justice and righteous living. Being righteous doesn’t require a god. It requires common sense. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Be good. Do good things. That’s pretty much it.



As frequently said _the devil is in the details.  _What I won’t commit to are the details and specifics. Spirituality is a good thing, because for myself, I believe because of my ability to think, that this life more likely has purpose, than is just a chance meaningless occurrence, although I have no real evidence other than possibly, the source of consciousness is an undetermined in our existence.

We know a lot, but scientists, last I heard, have no idea what the source or mechanism of consciousness is. A conk on the head disrupts consciousness, but where does it reside, exactly?  Is a link to an anchored soul disrupted? Unknown. What makes a human brain different than a PC, ie a computer running a program, vs awareness as we associate with ourselves?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I’m pretty much agnostic and am fine with whatever floats people’s boat as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. Sometimes I feel religion is the ultimate lazy answer to life not being fair and lack of motivation to do anything about it, and it’s not coincidence that’s often forced on us by those on the winning side of the life not being fair scale. Not all, but most aspects of life not being fair are completely manmade and therefor could be fixed by man. Big improvements in fairness could be made if we were even just slightly less materialistically greedy. Of course there are also those who could afford to be a lot less greedy and still be living great.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Huntn said:


> These are most religions’ assumptions: God exists, it is focused on us, it punishes and rewards, it frequently grants favors, and the primary hook, it offers the hope of continued consciousness beyond mortal death, hence the attraction.




Great thread, (and your thread in The Other Place is also very interesting).

Another assumption of almost every religion I have examined - and, in my mid to late teens, and early twenties, I did a lot of reading, and thinking, one might almost say "searching" - reading texts with a view to seeking answers to questions - on this very theme.


Anyway, another assumption of almost every religion that I have examined, is the sheer amount of theological energy and effort most organised religion put into oppressing, and repressing women.

By this, I mean the endless reams of dogma and divine diktat defining women as "lesser", "inferior" and, therefore, by definition, "subordinate", which is woven into the very warp and weft of the very fabric of almost every religious belief system.

This also ties in with how public devotion is expressed - a equation where degrees of devoutness are measured in adherence to expressions of piety which are about the control of women - an expression that often takes the form of policing, of controlling, of judging, women, and of placing or imposing strictures on the appearance, behaviour, and conduct of women in the public and the private spheres, on the basic rights accorded to women - and on controlling, dictating and ordering - indeed, circumscribing - their lives, (supposedly supported by divine diktat) very often in the most intimate of areas.

This isn't just confined to the various branches or the Christian faith - which is what I grew up with - but extends also to the more ferocious versions of the two other ancient Abrahamic faiths, namely, Islam and Judaism.  (And, yes, I read the Koran, also, at that time).

Indeed, Hindu (yes, I read the Ramayana and various Hindu myths on my various voyages of intellectual - and, I suppose, spiritual - discovery) thought, and of course, Buddhism, which I also took a look at, - perhaps in the hope of something different - was also depressingly predictable at excluding women from the enlightened delights of Nirvana.

Actually, apart from the 'reform' interpretations of Buddhism, which, in common with the reform movements found in many other religions, Judaism, Christianity - were more enlightened on the subject of women - almost every (actually, no, every single) religion I read about had attitudes to women that can best be described as extraordinarily negative, and, arising from that negativity, seeking justification (divinely granted) for quite (or sometimes, extraordinarily) repressive teachings about women - and which were applied to women - as a result.


----------



## Huntn

Scepticalscribe said:


> Great thread, (and your thread in The Other Place is also very interesting).
> 
> Another assumption of almost every religion I have examined - and, in my mid to late teens, I did a lot of reading, thinking, one might almost say "searching" - reading texts with a view to seeking answers to questions - on this very theme.
> 
> 
> Anyway, another assumption of almost every religion that I have examined, is the sheer amount of theological energy and effort most organised religion put into oppressing, and repressing women.
> 
> By this, I mean the endless reams of dogma and divine diktat defining women as "lesser", "inferior" and, by definition, "subordinate", which is woven into the very warp and weft of the very fabric of almost every religious belief system.
> 
> This also ties in with how much of how public devotion is expressed that takes the form of policing, of controlling, of judging, and imposing strictures on the appearance, behaviour, conduct of women in the public and the private spheres, and on controlling, dictating ad ordering - and circumscribing - their lives, (supposedly supported by divine diktat) very often in the most intimate of areas.
> 
> This isn't just confined to the various branches or the Christian faith - which is what I grew up with - but extends also to the more ferocious versions of the two other Abrahamic faiths, Islam and Judaism.  (And, yes, I read the Koran, also at that time).
> 
> Indeed, Hindu (yes, I read the Ramayana and various Hindu myths on my various voyages of intellectual - and, I suppose, spiritual - discovery) thought, and of course, Buddhism, which I also took a look at, was also depressing predictable at excluding women from the enlightened delights of Nirvana.
> 
> Actually, apart from the 'reform' interpretations of Buddhism, which, in common with the reform movements found in many other religions, Judaism, Christianity - were more enlightened on the subject of women - almost every (actually, no, every single) religion I read about had attitudes to women that can best be described as extraordinarily negative, and, arising from that negativity, quite (or sometimes, extraordinarily) repressive of women as a result.



A very excellent point, which lends itself to the premise based on historical cultural positioning, who (which sex) was in control, (a cultural standard with women as second class citizens) and who was  primarily authoring these ideas in spiritual documents?*

Which leads to an assessment that when it comes to the specifics of God, you are seeing at best what started as a philosophical idea, become transformed into a testament of facts, when it is no such thing. At best, regarding the specifics of God, group delusion and unfortunately a successful means to corrupt, control, and profit at the expense the sheep.

The worst aspect of the God Scam, is the notion that we without God,  possess nothing. In essence we have no inherent morals other than what God tells us what our morals should be. I’ve said this many times, but the mainstream religions I am familiar with, try to instill morality by turning us into good rule followers, instead of proceeding from the assumption that it is acting on our own accord is the only measure of judging actions, not how good we act to avoid punishment.

* I can imagine, maybe incorrectly, that when sexual roles became provider vs child raiser due to biological constructs, women birth and feed infant though bodily milk, that the men because action figures, and consequently took control of the direction of the tribe. As society, knowledge, technology advanced, the physical role of men has become diminished,  exceeded by the role of intelligence of which if you look at modern society, women are succeeding like never before because they bring a different, arguably sometimes a better skill set to leadership roles. This is not an argument that one sex is better than the other.


----------



## Alli

Huntn said:


> * I can imagine, maybe incorrectly, that when sexual roles became provider vs child raiser due to biological constructs, women birth and feed infant though bodily milk, that the men because action figures, and consequently took control of the direction of the tribe. As society, knowledge, technology advanced, the physical role of men has become diminished, exceeded by the role of intelligence of which if you look at modern society, women are succeeding like never before because they bring a different, arguably sometimes a better skill set to leadership roles. This is not an argument that one sex is better than the other.




I recently watched the tv series “Sirens.” Man and Merfolk might learn to live together. Anyhow, one of the cultural aspects they hit on was that when the babies are of age it is the men who take them to teach them to hunt and fight, but the society is matriarchal. I figured the writing team had to be mostly women.

The fact is, it’s only organized religion that ever causes any problem. It is when we begin labeling ourselves due to our beliefs that we run into issues. If there were no organization to belief, there would be no need of discussing the roles played by men or women - it would just be.


----------



## iMi

ericgtr12 said:


> I like to think of myself as more spiritual and definitely more agnostic when it comes to religion. I don't think any just god would ever deliberately condemn people to eternally burning in hell for not worshiping him. A football player thanks god for giving him the strength to score the winning touchdown, yet a child dies a hideous and painful death from cancer, maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere but I just can't reconcile that.




That’s because when something good happens, it’s “god’s will.” When something bad happens, it’s “the devils work.” Religious people find ways to justify everything. It’s a neat little setup. You can’t go wrong. You prayed and got what you wanted? God was “with you.” You didn’t get it? It’s “gods way of showing you another way.”


----------



## Alli

iMi said:


> That’s because when something good happens, it’s “god’s will.” When something bad happens, it’s “the devils work.” Religious people find ways to justify everything. It’s a neat little setup. You can’t go wrong. You prayed and got what you wanted? God was “with you.” You didn’t get it? It’s “gods way of showing you another way.”



Which is why I have a problem with athletic teams and prayer. It suggests god did not like the opposing team.


----------



## Alli

I just finished watching the limited series Midnight Mass on Netflix and felt it needed to be discussed here. 

How can you one have such faith that they are willing to believe something is what they want it to be, despite it not being that thing? The priest in the show wanted so badly for the vampire to be the angel of god that he didn’t see it for what it was until it was too late.


----------



## Huntn

Alli said:


> Which is why I have a problem with athletic teams and prayer. It suggests god did not like the opposing team.



What’s wrong with _Dear God let me win, make me better, make the other side stumble?  _


Alli said:


> I just finished watching the limited series Midnight Mass on Netflix and felt it needed to be discussed here.
> 
> How can you one have such faith that they are willing to believe something is what they want it to be, despite it not being that thing? The priest in the show wanted so badly for the vampire to be the angel of god that he didn’t see it for what it was until it was too late.



Oh, man, this needed a spoiler. I’ve not watched it yet. I probably still would have read it even with the spoiler label, so never mind. 

Now since I’ve not watched it, I’ll comment that faith is all about granting you what you desire especially the fantasies and it is pick and choose, latch onto what you want and disregard what you don’t like. This in a nutshell (used that term for a reason) can be the only reason why some conservative Christians would gladly offer their daughters up to go on a date with:



_Maybe he’ll honor her by grabbing her pussy!_​


----------



## Alli

Sorry. I’m really bad about spoilers, and yea, I always read them too, even when clearly marked.

I went to sleep thinking about this last night. I just can’t get it out of my head, and I wind up thinking of Jonestown, and everyone drinking his Kool-Aid. I’m not a big fan of blind faith. There are too many examples of how it goes wrong, and not enough examples of how it was rewarded. Unless, of course, it’s the kind of faith you put in the person you’ve never met who is piloting your plane.


----------



## Huntn

Alli said:


> Sorry. I’m really bad about spoilers, and yea, I always read them too, even when clearly marked.
> 
> I went to sleep thinking about this last night. I just can’t get it out of my head, and I wind up thinking of Jonestown, and everyone drinking his Kool-Aid. I’m not a big fan of blind faith. There are too many examples of how it goes wrong, and not enough examples of how it was rewarded. Unless, of course, it’s the kind of faith you put in the person you’ve never met who is piloting your plane.




For picking a plane and pilot there usually is some basis to spot a reputable company, and you want reputable oversight when deciding who to  trust your life to, so it’s not completely blind. 

For trusting _The Head Shit_ you have to wonder upon what basis that trust is given, but none of that trust is based on something positive, it‘s based on the worst characteristics of the human species, negative motivation. Is it: selfishness based on percieved fantasies,  self advantage at other’s expense, suckers, stupid, victims, Koolaid drinkers, white supremicists, anarchists, co-conspirators, or  henchmen?


----------



## tobefirst

Alli said:


> I just finished watching the limited series Midnight Mass on Netflix and felt it needed to be discussed here.
> 
> How can you one have such faith that *they are willing to believe something is what they want it to be, despite it not being that thing?* The priest in the show wanted so badly for the vampire to be the angel of god that he didn’t see it for what it was until it was too late.



I've not seen the show, but how is the bolded unique to religion/faith? It seems to me to be a part of human nature.

I guess I'm lucky I wasn't around to see this:


> The fact is, it’s only organized religion that ever causes any problem.



As a person of faith, this could not be more insulting. And incorrect.


----------



## Huntn

tobefirst said:


> I've not seen the show, but how is the bolded unique to religion/faith? It seems to me to be a part of human nature.
> 
> I guess I'm lucky I wasn't around to see this:
> 
> As a person of faith, this could not be more insulting. And incorrect.



I agree religion is a product of human nature.
From where did you pull the second quote? I looked around the immediate vicinity and did not see it.

To clarify my religious stance:
We exist, we are trying to understand the terms that define why and how we exist. As we don’t have the answers, many of us rely on faith.

What is faith? For one thing it is the absence of fact. It’s whatever we want it to be, whatever our desires are, it comforts us, shields some of us from the fear of death, whatever we feel in our hearts, whatever we think we sense, and that’s ok as long as we practise a live and let live methodology and our faith is not harmful to others, does not eliminate civil rights based on an individual religious standard.

Not intended as a lecture and I’m not making any assumptions about you or your religious beliefs, just offered for discussion purposes:

Religion tends to turn fantasy into fact.
Some religious folks decide it is their duty to enforce God’s Law because either they want brownie points from God, or they feel like God can’t handle its own enforcement of its laws.
It’s not just organized religion that causes problems, but in the realm of religion, organized religion based on numbers holds the most power and it frequently trying to shove their views down everyone’s throats.
We live in a country with religious freedom. What does that mean? It means you are allowed to be free of religion, or to practise your religion without stepping on non believers or on those those with other beliefs. Religious freedom is not _I get to exercise my religious prejudices _in any public venue of commerce, employment, housing, or access. Nor am I able to shove my views down your throat or deny you something like a birth control medicine because you are my employee. And I should be able to walk into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake with two men‘s names on it and not be turned away.
Yet in the US we have an organized conspiracy to turn this nation into a Christian theocracy along with laws that enforce Christian beliefs. Example: anti-abortion laws. There are Christians (not all Christians but a sizable number) today, the most active religion in US politics actively attempting to undermine the Constitution to take away our religious freedom.

Not only that, but a seizable number of them decided that Beelzebub, also know as Donald Trump was the best way to achieve Christian ideals in the US. Talk about corrupting one’s own standards, losing your way, or selling your soul.


----------



## tobefirst

Huntn said:


> I agree religion is a product of human nature.



Clever, but not what I said at all.


Huntn said:


> From where did you pull the second quote? I looked around the immediate vicinity and did not see it.



Up here.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Well, I would disagree with that statement, since plenty of problems are caused by the unorganized, fanatical belief of a single person. There are certainly problems that can be caused by religious belief, but they are not all due to its organization.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Alli said:


> I just finished watching the limited series Midnight Mass on Netflix and felt it needed to be discussed here.
> 
> How can you one have such faith that they are willing to believe something is what they want it to be, despite it not being that thing? The priest in the show wanted so badly for the vampire to be the angel of god that he didn’t see it for what it was until it was too late.




I watched some interviews with the cast and Mike Flannigan and they made sure to never refer to the angel as a vampire or even vampires in the general sense to further drive the underlying meaning home. I read a recent psychology article that compared religious fundamentalism to parasites that removes the host’s ability to think freely and critically while removing them from the rest of society to insure its survival.

I watched a movie review of Midnight Mass and the reviewer was raised in what he later determined was a cult and he said no other movie or series he’s seen depicted his own experience so accurately, sans the “angel”.


----------



## Edd

tobefirst said:


> Clever, but not what I said at all.
> 
> Up here.



Not looking for a big argument about religion, but I’d sure like to see a world without it. Try it on for awhile, see how it fits.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Edd said:


> Not looking for a big argument about religion, but I’d sure like to see a world without it. Try it on for awhile, see how it fits.




Reminds me of a study I read about a couple months ago that concluded atheists are more empathetic, compassionate, and inclusive than Christians.  

My bible thumping uncle once in a rare instance of self reflection admitted to me that if it was definitively proven there was no God then he would feel he wasted a lot of time and self righteousness, and missed out on life experiences.  I believe on that last part he means he would have hooked up with a lot more ladies casually.  Of course he could also mean he wants to be a serial killer but God said no.


----------



## Alli

tobefirst said:


> As a person of faith, this could not be more insulting. And incorrect.



Can you be a person of faith without belonging to a wider group of people sharing your faith? With few exceptions, most wars have started over religion.


----------



## Alli

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I read a recent psychology article that compared religious fundamentalism to parasites that removes the host’s ability to think freely and critically while removing them from the rest of society to insure its survival.



I like the sound of that.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Edd said:


> Not looking for a big argument about religion, but I’d sure like to see a world without it. Try it on for awhile, see how it fits.



I think it is a human need for us to believe in something bigger than ourselves, but that thing doesn’t need to be religion per se. One of the most positive aspects of religion is the sense of community it helps create and support (and it’s plainly evident the problems that follow from a lack of community support and belonging). I have always believed that the tendency toward religion is a human universal and if we got rid of it, something else would take its place (such as a charismatic leader or political ideology). I wish religion could create that sense of community and purpose without also creating the situation where those who believe differently are enemies who need to be converted/vanquished. But that’s just humanity, I guess.


----------



## Huntn

tobefirst said:


> Clever, but not what I said at all.
> 
> Up here.



I’m surprised you did not challenge some part of the rest of my post.  However I admit  to not knowing what you are, theist, agnostic, atheist, other. 

*@Alli regarding religion: **they are willing to believe something is what they want it to be*, despite it not being that thing?
*You: *I've not seen the show, but how is the bolded unique to religion/faith? It seems to me to be a part of human nature.
*Me: *I agree religion is a product of human nature.

*In conclusion, in reference to religion:* People are willing to believe something, what they want it to be. But that is not unique to religion, yet it is a part of religion,  and both of which are manifestations of human nature.


----------



## Alli

Huntn said:


> *In conclusion, in reference to religion:* People are willing to believe something, what they want it to be. But that is not unique to religion, yet it is a part of religion, and both of which are manifestations of human nature.



As civilization advances and things are explained scientifically, do we still need religion?


----------



## Huntn

TBL said:


> Well, I would disagree with that statement, since plenty of problems are caused by the unorganized, fanatical belief of a single person. There are certainly problems that can be caused by religious belief, but they are not all due to its organization.



It due to their masses which are organized and have power to flex by virtue of the numbers.


----------



## tobefirst

Alli said:


> Can you be a person of faith without belonging to a wider group of people sharing your faith? With few exceptions, most wars have started over religion.



If you had said "most wars," I wouldn't have taken (as much) umbrage. But that's not what you said. You said, "The fact is, it’s only organized religion that ever causes any problem." 

Only...ever...any.


----------



## tobefirst

Huntn said:


> I’m surprised you did not challenge some part of the rest of my post.  However I admit  to not knowing what you are, theist, agnostic, atheist, other.
> 
> *@Alli regarding religion: **they are willing to believe something is what they want it to be*, despite it not being that thing?
> *You: *I've not seen the show, but how is the bolded unique to religion/faith? It seems to me to be a part of human nature.
> *Me: *I agree religion is a product of human nature.
> 
> *In conclusion, in reference to religion:* People are willing to believe something, what they want it to be. But that is not unique to religion, yet it is a part of religion,  and both of which are manifestations of human nature.



But I wasn't at all saying that religion is a product of human nature. What you are agreeing with, as you write in your last sentence, is that it isn't unique to religion, but above you play like I said religion is a product of human nature. Again, clever, but not what I said.


----------



## Huntn

Alli said:


> As civilization advances and things are explained scientifically, do we still need religion?



Well, the answer seems that a lot of us do. Whatever comforts us, as long as it does not become a projection of power and control Is ok.

I’ve always admitted that while I can’t say I sense spirituality, there are certain things like thinking about the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, that there should be a purpose, including achieving consciousness, and the ability to analyze one’s existence that it’s not just a purely chance and meaningless occurance. I rebel against this notion. Plus I get all warm and fuzzy when I think there something more. It’s too real of a feeling to ignore. 

And look at it this way with eternity to work with, we achieved consciousness as an entity at least once,  maybe more than once, maybe continuously, maybe there is a good place. But maybe is a long way from fact… except there is this:





I may have to break out LOTR ​


----------



## Huntn

tobefirst said:


> But I wasn't at all saying that religion is a product of human nature. What you are agreeing with, as you write in your last sentence, is that it isn't unique to religion, but above you play like I said religion is a product of human nature. Again, clever, but not what I said.



What else can it be a product of? We invented it or if you prefer we sense it. The mistake is making it fact. That would be a leap of faith, and that’s not enough of a basis to force it on people (not an accusation).

Listen, if there is God, if there is truth we will all not be able but see the truth, and we have to see it on our own, not be forced to comply with something unseen and unfelt, because some do gooder thinks it is their duty to beat us into submission into seeing their God. It just would not work that way. That’s along the same lines as being a good Christian because Hell is waiting for you otherwise. A very illogical human natured  concept.


----------



## Thomas Veil

I'm with those of you who declare themselves agnostic. I think God is just another one of the many constructs we've created throughout history to explain that which we don't understand. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm so brazen as to think we have proof that God _does not_ exist. We just don't know, and never will.



TBL said:


> Well, I would disagree with that statement, since plenty of problems are caused by the unorganized, fanatical belief of a single person. There are certainly problems that can be caused by religious belief, but they are not all due to its organization.



That's true, but when I think of your latter example, I think of the one lone person with a mental health issue who believes God told him or her to murder someone. When I think of organized religion, I think of all the laws, the genocides, the crusades etc. which have killed people throughout history.

I don't have quite the same problem with faith. If faith is what brings peace to you, more power to you.



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Reminds me of a study I read about a couple months ago that concluded atheists are more empathetic, compassionate, and inclusive than Christians.



If you really do believe that the greatest commandment is to love each other as you love yourself, then I long ago came to the conclusion that non-believers were better adherents to that rule, for they practice what they do not out of fear of some kind of eternal damnation, but out of a belief to which they came _on their own_ that this is the only true way to coexist.



Eric said:


> I don't think any just god would ever deliberately condemn people to eternally burning in hell for not worshiping him.



Yeah, I don't think any god would be so imperious as to demand that sort of adulation. Humans, on the other hand...


----------



## Huntn

Thomas Veil said:


> I'm with those of you who declare themselves agnostic. I think God is just another one of the many constructs we've created throughout history to explain that which we don't understand. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm so brazen as to think we have proof that God _does not_ exist. We just don't know, and never will.
> 
> 
> That's true, but when I think of your latter example, I think of the one lone person with a mental health issue who believes God told him or her to murder someone. When I think of organized religion, I think of all the laws, the genocides, the crusades etc. which have killed people throughout history.
> 
> I don't have quite the same problem with faith. If faith is what brings peace to you, more power to you.
> 
> 
> If you really do believe that the greatest commandment is to love each other as you love yourself, then I long ago came to the conclusion that non-believers were better adherents to that rule, for they practice what they do not out of fear of some kind of eternal damnation, but out of a belief to which they came _on their own_ that this is the only true way to coexist.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think any god would be so imperious as to demand that sort of adulation. Humans, on the other hand...



We can honestly say we’ve seen one face of Beelzebub as a human manifestation. While  I’m not a  fan of Christianity, I really do like the idea of the Devil as the darkness that resides in the human species, in  the human sprit,  ready to arise under the right circumstance and provocation.  There is really no other way to describe millions choosing such an obvious loser. It’s sad and terrifying. Option 2 to void the religious aspect would be to identify some Extreme Mental Maladjustment like insecure, corrupted, narcissistic, sociopath, but still some would describe it as evil.


----------



## Alli

tobefirst said:


> If you had said "most wars," I wouldn't have taken (as much) umbrage. But that's not what you said. You said, "The fact is, it’s only organized religion that ever causes any problem."
> 
> Only...ever...any.



Let’s face it. There is no such thing as disorganized religion.


Thomas Veil said:


> When I think of organized religion, I think of all the laws, the genocides, the crusades etc. which have killed people throughout history.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Edd

Huntn said:


> We can honestly say we’ve seen one face of Beelzebub as a human manifestation. While  I’m not a  fan of Christianity, I really do like the idea of the Devil as the darkness that resides in the human species, in  the human sprit,  ready to arise under the right circumstance and provocation.  There is really no other way to describe millions choosing such an obvious loser. It’s sad and terrifying. Option 2 to void the religious aspect would be to identify some Extreme Mental Maladjustment like insecure, corrupted, narcissistic, sociopath, but still some would describe it as evil.



Trump is undoubtedly evil. I would expect the Devil to come at us more sophisticated, like Omen 2. Not in such a fat, stupid package.


----------



## tobefirst

Alli said:


> Let’s face it. There is no such thing as disorganized religion.



Any problem ever is caused by organized religion? You really believe that? Do you understand how absolute and all encompassing your statement was? And how, as a person of faith, how insulting that could be? If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Huntn

Edd said:


> Trump is undoubtedly evil. I would expect the Devil to come at us more sophisticated, like Omen 2. Not in such a fat, stupid package.



Except look how successful this crass sinister dope is with STUPID. It's mind boggling.


----------



## Deleted member 215

tobefirst said:


> Any problem ever is caused by organized religion? You really believe that? Do you understand how absolute and all encompassing your statement was? And how, as a person of faith, how insulting that could be? If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.




Hmm. That's not how I read that comment. I read it is "religion only causes problems when it's organized" (something I disagreed with and explained) not "organized religion is the cause of all problems".


----------



## Hrafn

Here's my main issue: religion, like manners is supposed to ease frictions between us.  But, both get corrupted by the practitioners until they are the _reason_ for the frictions.  Jesus said "turn the other cheek".  What we see here is "you hurt my feeeeeewwwwings".  Follow Jesus or don't.  

So: "Blessed are the cheesemakers"  And, all makers of dairy products!


----------



## tobefirst

TBL said:


> Hmm. That's not how I read that comment. I read it is "religion only causes problems when it's organized" (something I disagreed with and explained) not "organized religion is the cause of all problems".



Huh. I see what you’re saying. Thank you for explaining. I read the emphasis differently than you did, obviously. As such, @Alli, I wish to extend my apologies for misinterpreting. I’m deeply sorry, and a bit embarrassed.


----------



## Alli

tobefirst said:


> Any problem ever is caused by organized religion? You really believe that? Do you understand how absolute and all encompassing your statement was? And how, as a person of faith, how insulting that could be? If you don't, I don't know what to tell you.






tobefirst said:


> Huh. I see what you’re saying. Thank you for explaining. I read the emphasis differently than you did, obviously. As such, @Alli, I wish to extend my apologies for misinterpreting. I’m deeply sorry, and a bit embarrassed.



No harm no foul. I do tend to be blunt though, so often misinterpreted. 

I also have a long and involved relationship with religion, and understanding that helps. It all started when I was expelled from Baptist Missionary school in Taichung at the end of my 8th grade year. I overcompensated by becoming very observant  in my late teens early 20s. Fortunately, that didn’t fit in with any society outside of a large metro area, so I came out of it early. What didn’t help was moving here, where white people tend to introduce themselves with “hi, my name’s Lulu. What church do y’all attend?”


----------



## Huntn

*Priests and Your Kids Vol2*: 3000 priests involved, the guys some of us called Father and confessed our sins to…  _surprise_! 









						A report finds French clergy sexually abused over 300,000 children since 1950
					

NPR's Rachel Martin talks to David Gibson of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University about French children sexually abused by people in the Catholic Church.




					www.npr.org
				




One thing this proves imo, celibacy as a standard for human beings is a unrealistic and bankrupt standard thought up by a religious organization arguably for self interest and profit. _We don’t need our employees distracted by having a normal life, _plus I think, not sure, _we get their inheritance when they pass. _


----------



## Herdfan

I was raised in the church, but have never really had faith.  It just never came to me like it does some others.  I know this disappointed my mom, but you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe. It is what it is.

That said, I also respect those who do believe, even if I think they can be a bit crazy.  We now know enough about how the universe was formed to know it didn't happen in 6 days.  Some will say it is a metaphorical 6-days, but there are those who insist it happened in 6 earth days.  Nope. 

I know my daughter missed out on some things by not going to church because we do live on the edge of the bible belt and it is a social hub.  But knowing her, I doubt she would have had faith either.  She see things too literally to believe.  

Also, I think church goers are some of the most judgemental people you will ever meet.  Don't go one week and there is always that "sweet" little old lady who has to come up and say "We missed you last week".  Bull.  You didn't miss me, you just wanted to let me know that you knew I wasn't there.  

But I know people who won't buy a car without discussing it with some people from the church.  Some who won't go out to eat at certain restaurants because they "serve alcohol".  And it won't necessarily be because they are opposed, but what if someone from the church saw them leaving and assumed they were in there drinking.  Seriously, that is no way to live.  I remember being out in a bar in Myrtle Beach and this kid I knew saw me and turned white as a sheet.  He came up and said, you didn't see me and I didn't see you.  My reply was "my mom knows where I am and what I am doing".  He really didn't know how to process that.  Sad.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> I was raised in the church, but have never really had faith.  It just never came to me like it does some others.  I know this disappointed my mom, but you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe. It is what it is.
> 
> That said, I also respect those who do believe, even if I think they can be a bit crazy.  We now know enough about how the universe was formed to know it didn't happen in 6 days.  Some will say it is a metaphorical 6-days, but there are those who insist it happened in 6 earth days.  Nope.
> 
> I know my daughter missed out on some things by not going to church because we do live on the edge of the bible belt and it is a social hub.  But knowing her, I doubt she would have had faith either.  She see things too literally to believe.
> 
> Also, I think church goers are some of the most judgemental people you will ever meet.  Don't go one week and there is always that "sweet" little old lady who has to come up and say "We missed you last week".  Bull.  You didn't miss me, you just wanted to let me know that you knew I wasn't there.
> 
> But I know people who won't buy a car without discussing it with some people from the church.  Some who won't go out to eat at certain restaurants because they "serve alcohol".  And it won't necessarily be because they are opposed, but what if someone from the church saw them leaving and assumed they were in there drinking.  Seriously, that is no way to live.  I remember being out in a bar in Myrtle Beach and this kid I knew saw me and turned white as a sheet.  He came up and said, you didn't see me and I didn't see you.  My reply was "my mom knows where I am and what I am doing".  He really didn't know how to process that.  Sad.



Some parallel with my back story.  I joined the church because it was more or less expected, but not from my parents, from the social circle at the church, and the entire time I was wanting to believe, hedging my bets, waiting for some revelation, some harbinger of the truth of God as expressed by the Presbyterian Church, and I, it never happened.


----------



## Huntn

… I’ll add this, if there is a God that matters, we’ll have no choice but to see it, if we need to see it,  and if we don’t see it you can blame the deity.

And we will never have to stoop to imagining a deity that rules over our existence because we imagine we might be punished after the fact. The entire idea is suspect, flawed, and oh so human. Being a good rule follower with the threat of punishment, means NOTHING. You can only be meaningfully judged by what you do because of your own volition, not what you do when being threatened.

Therefore, by extension the Earth Simulator is a place where maybe you can evolve, learn, and maybe, just maybe end up being a better entity. Or maybe it’s a train wreck for this cycle.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

A couple of my questions are why do so many churches lean heavy on negativity and so many people feel that's a good group to belong to?  It sounds like they aren't offering any real-world solutions, only scapegoats to blame for their problems or the state of the world.


----------



## Alli

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> A couple of my questions are why do so many churches lean heavy on negativity and so many people feel that's a good group to belong to?  It sounds like they aren't offering any real-world solutions, only scapegoats to blame for their problems or the state of the world.



Because religion is still very much a crutch.


----------



## Huntn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> A couple of my questions are why do so many churches lean heavy on negativity and so many people feel that's a good group to belong to?  It sounds like they aren't offering any real-world solutions, only scapegoats to blame for their problems or the state of the world.



I remember growing up in the Presbyterian church, in the DC suburbs. It was pretty mild, no hellfire and damnation sermons, mostly be good and help your fellow human being. There was no discussion of racial or gay issues, and this was well before LGBT came into widespread recognition. Abstinence until marriage was taught as the only birth control. Looking back on it, it was being taught to be good in a straight jacket. Now It’s been a long time since I’ve been to the Presbyterian Church so I can’t say how far they have come.

But over the decades, I have acquired a very specific feeling about many ”conservative” church groups that have turned into cults, cults of selfishness, intolerance, ignorance, corrupting, picking, choosing, fabricating, the reported teachings of Jesus, and you can choke on _my way or the highway, _going as far as undermining the Constitution of the US, abandoning democracy, destroying religious freedom (if we let them)  and turning the US into a corrupt fascist, theist state, undermining elections, depressing voting rights,  if they can, _All For God’s Glory_. Anyone think this is an exaggeration?

When you see religious organizations supporting the likes of Trump, you have your answer regarding corruption, and this is without a doubt.  Ironically these religious groups make a huge deal about saving fetuses, but don’t give a damn about them once they emerge from the womb, as if this pleases their warped God.

Reagarding your question, negativity equals sin, and that is the grand manipulation, historically and today. Humans are flawed, and there is an illusion involved with sin, because we can’t agree about what sin is or the limits of sin. But we have some inspired individuals ready to define it for us, and I’m  not talking about easily recognized wrong doing like stealing (exemption: stealing to keep from starving)  or murder.  Examples: being gay, transgender, or having sex without God’s permission, sex, a biological imperative, if enjoyed is reduced to sin (mostly an outright sham these days)  and even dancing (historically) in some corners when viewed with a sexual lense.  Pretty twisted.  

So as a broad generalization, religion pretends it is about “being good” but it’s more about control, power, and profit, because there are those among us who not only know human beings are flawed, but we (many of us ) are scared of death, and gullible, hence the hooks are there to rope the sheep in and sheer them.  Some  are worse than others, but they are all about money, some worse than others.

And even though it’s a fantasy, you can’t ignore the corruption of teachings, the picking and choosing, the ignore what they want and fabricate, and exaggerate whatever pleases them, including, ignoring or falsely stating the teachings of Jesus, such as don’t judge, don’t scorn, be tolerant, etc. And the bottom of the barrel, the most deluded is embracing the Devil, while calling him their savior., and thinking you are a Christian. I just finished Midnight Mass and although fiction boy did that resonate,  when religion goes off the rails.


----------



## Edd

I wasn't raised religious, so I just look at it from a distance, but it all just looks like total dishonest garbage to me.  I have contempt for it.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhh, this will end well...



> MAGA Gun Church That Worships With AR-15s Buys Giant Property in Tennessee
> 
> 
> Rod of Iron Ministries has been on a property-buying spree and says it plans to build a training center and spiritual retreat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vice.com






> The MAGA-loving religious sect that worships with AR-15s has purchased a 130-acre property on a mountain in eastern Tennessee to serve as a “training center” and holy ground for its devoted, gun-toting followers, VICE News has learned.
> 
> The latest property acquisition is more evidence that Pastor Hyung Jin “Sean” Moon, a fervent conspiracy theorist and son of an accused cult leader, is determined to expand his reach into the American Heartland.
> 
> Moon’s congregation, Rod of Iron Ministries, also known as The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary, is a gun-centric spinoff of the much larger Unification Church, founded by his late father, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a self-proclaimed messiah and businessman whose followers were famously known as “Moonies.” The younger Moon, who also goes by “The Second King,” split from the main church amid a dramatic falling-out with his mother about who, between the two of them, was the rightful heir to his father’s empire.
> 
> In 2017, Moon founded his church in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania, siphoning off hundreds of followers from the main congregation who were willing to make the seemingly radical leap of incorporating high-powered rifles into their spiritual life. He did this with the backing of his older brother, Kook-jin “Justin” Moon, the CEO of Kahr Arms, a gun manufacturing company headquartered nearby. In recent years, he’s made headlines for recreating the mass wedding ceremonies that his father’s church was famous for, with the addition of AR-15s.
> 
> Sean and Justin Moon, plus other senior church officials, were also at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, and posted videos of themselves emerging from clouds of tear gas. Sean has also courted fringe MAGA-world figures; this weekend, the annual Rod of Iron Freedom Fest at the Kahr Arms headquarters in Greeley will include speakers such as former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, ex–NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch, far-right Proud Boy ally Joey Gibson, and GOP congressional candidate Teddy Daniels.


----------



## Huntn

Edd said:


> I wasn't raised religious, so I just look at it from a distance, but it all just looks like total dishonest garbage to me.  I have contempt for it.



There are some positive tenants but in the big picture, in the power, wealth, and control, they get lost. When you read the Bible it is a pseudo history book, coming from multiple authors who the Catholic Church (men) decided these writings are the word of God, when in actuality it’s just the words of some other men that they like because it resonated with them.

Unfortunately actual rules reported as directly from the diety are few and far between. Many of these parables require that the reader interpret and make up their own rules based on some event, reported as an act of God.

The Old Testament is the harshest, out of touch, yet it’s still there in the Bible, but  mostly ignored today except by the hard core retro believers. A man lies with a man is worthy of death, the ”effeminate” (man) won’t make it to heaven because God only likes manly men, and  apparently God is good with some girl on girl action.  The irony here is that this mostly represents that the world 2000 years ago in the Middle East, according to men, revolved around men. Women were basically reduced to property, incubators, sources of pleasure, so who cares what they do as long as they please us. 






						BIBLE VERSES ABOUT MAN SHALL NOT LAY WITH MAN
					

BIBLE VERSES ABOUT MAN SHALL NOT LAY WITH MAN. Man Shall Not Lay With Man Bible verses in the King James Version (KJV) about Man Shall Not Lay With Man.




					www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
				











						What does the Bible say about being a lesbian? Does the Bible mention lesbianism? | GotQuestions.org
					

What does the Bible say about being a lesbian? Does the Bible mention lesbianism? Is it a sin to be a lesbian?



					www.gotquestions.org
				




*And anti- abortion?* This is really a stretch, an issue completely conjured up in minds of radical sheep because abortion is not a subject in the Bible, but there is a lot of pre-natal death, and God seems to not care so much about the unborn, besides he said _breath is synonymous with life_, among other things.





						What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
					

God Is So Not Pro-Life By Brian Bolton Click here to read the nontract "What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?" A prominent fundamentalist Christian...




					ffrf.org
				




*Reported teachings of Jesus*








						What are the main points of Jesus' teaching?
					

What are the main points of Jesus' teaching? What things did Jesus teach? What were some of the basics of Jesus' teaching?



					www.compellingtruth.org
				




Everyone can make it to heaven, the good place, but unfortunately you have to believe in God (whatever that is).
Treat  others as you would have them treat you.
The greatest Commandment is love God and love your neighbor. You become a goid neighbor when you help your neighbors. The Good Samaritan Parable.
Sin seperates people from God, is forgivable, and that people should forgive others.






						Bible List Of The Ten Commandments
					

Bible list of the Ten Commandments with the Hebrew and Jewish Ten Commandments and printable posters and what are the Ten Commandments?



					www.the-ten-commandments.org
				



Color coded from garbage to good morality imo.

*The Ten Commandments*
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (It depends on who your Mother and Father are, are they worthy of being honored?) 
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


----------



## Hrafn

Tl;dr:  no abortion and kill the gays!


----------



## Hrafn

Huntn said:


> There are some positive tenants but in the big picture, in the power, wealth, and control, they get lost. When you read the Bible it is a pseudo history book, coming from multiple authors who the Catholic Church (men) decided these writings are the word of God, when in actuality it’s just the words of some other men that they like because it resonated with them.
> 
> Unfortunately actual rules reported as directly from the diety are few and far between. Many of these parables require that the reader interpret and make up their own rules based on some event, reported as an act of God.
> 
> The Old Testament is the harshest, out of touch, yet it’s still there in the Bible, but  mostly ignored today except by the hard core retro believers. A man lies with a man is worthy of death, the ”effeminate” (man) won’t make it to heaven because God only likes manly men, and  apparently God is good with some girl on girl action.  The irony here is that this mostly represents that the world 2000 years ago in the Middle East, according to men, revolved around men. Women were basically reduced to property, incubators, sources of pleasure, so who cares what they do as long as they please us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIBLE VERSES ABOUT MAN SHALL NOT LAY WITH MAN
> 
> 
> BIBLE VERSES ABOUT MAN SHALL NOT LAY WITH MAN. Man Shall Not Lay With Man Bible verses in the King James Version (KJV) about Man Shall Not Lay With Man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Bible say about being a lesbian? Does the Bible mention lesbianism? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What does the Bible say about being a lesbian? Does the Bible mention lesbianism? Is it a sin to be a lesbian?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And anti- abortion?* This is really a stretch, an issue completely conjured up in minds of radical sheep because abortion is not a subject in the Bible, but there is a lot of pre-natal death, and God seems to not care so much about the unborn, besides he said _breath is synonymous with life_, among other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
> 
> 
> God Is So Not Pro-Life By Brian Bolton Click here to read the nontract "What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?" A prominent fundamentalist Christian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ffrf.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reported teachings of Jesus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the main points of Jesus' teaching?
> 
> 
> What are the main points of Jesus' teaching? What things did Jesus teach? What were some of the basics of Jesus' teaching?
> 
> 
> 
> www.compellingtruth.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can make it to heaven, the good place, but unfortunately you have to believe in God (whatever that is).
> Treat  others as you would have them treat you.
> The greatest Commandment is love God and love your neighbor. You become a goid neighbor when you help your neighbors. The Good Samaritan Parable.
> Sin seperates people from God, is forgivable, and that people should forgive others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible List Of The Ten Commandments
> 
> 
> Bible list of the Ten Commandments with the Hebrew and Jewish Ten Commandments and printable posters and what are the Ten Commandments?
> 
> 
> 
> www.the-ten-commandments.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Color coded from garbage to good morality imo.
> 
> *The Ten Commandments*
> 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
> 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
> 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
> 5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (It depends on who your Mother and Father are, are they worthy of being honored?)
> 6. Thou shalt not kill.
> 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
> 8. Thou shalt not steal.
> 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
> 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.



In my tl:dr defense, I both read your post and agree.  I was channeling my inner merkin.  

I don't understand how someone claiming to be a follower of Jesus can pull the kind of ish our right wing brethren have no issues with.


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> The Old Testament is the harshest, out of touch, yet it’s still there in the Bible, but  mostly ignored today except by the hard core retro believers. A man lies with a man is worthy of death, the ”effeminate” (man) won’t make it to heaven because God only likes manly men, and * apparently God is good with some girl on girl action.*  The irony here is that this mostly represents that the world 2000 years ago in the Middle East, according to men, revolved around men. Women were basically reduced to property, incubators, sources of pleasure, so who cares what they do as long as they please us.




I completely missed this in Sunday School.  

I went to a Baptist Church as a kid, but it wasn't an Evangelical or Freewill one.  More like the people that got kicked out of the Methodist Church down the street.  My Sunday School class was taught by a classmate's dad.  As you noted, mostly it was be kind to other people, don't have sex, don't drink or smoke.  Not fire and brimstone at all.

I did learn one thing: Never take just one Baptist fishing, they will drink all your beer.


----------



## Huntn

*Separation of Church and State?*  HA-HA (USA) jokes on you.
This rant is triggered regarding the SCOTUS Dobbs decision, over turning Roe vs Wade. Now hospitals in Texas are choosing not to treat women with pregnancy complications in fear of where it might lead?? What is the woman to do, crawl into her bed and don’t bother the medical profession, and pray.  But we’ll have lots of thoughts and prayers ready to go upon the Lord calling you home.  Oh what evil is at work here.

I did not start this in a neutral manner, because for decades I have considered it, gave it a chance, but how in the face of such poison dripping into the minds of human beings could you ever consider *religion* a positive force, even a fantasy positive force?  In the mind of human beings, it’s too easily corrupted, a tool for self benefit, for hypocritical power, oppression, and control.

Religion could easily  be classified at minimum a malady and for worst cases a mental illness. Infrequently, if ever, could be described as a positive force.

Think about the basics of religion.  It’s not about the pure value and self benefit of being good and  treating each other with love along with the joy of existence. That is a failed idea at best.  It almost automatically becomes  about intolerance based on the imagined standards of a diety who will punish us if we don’t follow the rules. The tragic aspect of this psychosis is that these rules are manufactured by our frequently selfish imaginations for our own benefit.

I’m not saying there is not a pure live and let live, care for one another religion out there, somewhere?  The  problem is with humanity’s haywire, often self serving, straight jacket imagination,  the bullshit, the oppression, and the distinct lack of critical thinking, in favor of wild eyed self serving and comforting fantasies.

And the worst is when religion leaves the realm of _I think_ to become not only  _I Know,_ but _I know what’s good for you too, and I’m intolerant of anything outside of my personal straight jacket. _And it then goes on to perform heinous acts in the name of The Lord.

The teachings of Jesus? Pfft…_Gotcha_!

The stinking, corrupting nature of religion as a tool to oppress is now splashed all over us, as a group heinous Right Wing Ideologues first bent over for the corporatracy, (Citizens United) but are now being consistent in their desire to create a Christian Theocracy (Hobby Lobby and Dobbs) shoving their religion control down our throats,  Get ready for a slew onerous right wing rulings as Christianity in control of SCOTUS marches us back to the 1950s.

And if you are of voting age, you’d better get your ass to the voting booth unless you don’t give a damn. Then there’s no whining allowed. The rest of us can sit around and lament that the Liberty Experiment* known as The United States of America was a farce and a failure. Or maybe Civil War 2.0

* Admittedly the definition of liberty is based on the mind of the individual thinking about it. Clearly the liberty of a hermit living on a deserted island is much different than than liberty as defined for millions of people living together. Unfortunately humanity especially in the USA upon which I am focused, has a high STUPID quotient. Along the lines of: _GUNS are the problem… lots more GUNS will make it better. _
STU-PID_…_ selfishness, and lack of critical thinking in favor of self serving fantasies, are the root of most, if not all of our problems.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> I completely missed this in Sunday School.
> 
> I went to a Baptist Church as a kid, but it wasn't an Evangelical or Freewill one.  More like the people that got kicked out of the Methodist Church down the street.  My Sunday School class was taught by a classmate's dad.  As you noted, mostly it was be kind to other people, don't have sex, don't drink or smoke.  Not fire and brimstone at all.
> 
> I did learn one thing: Never take just one Baptist fishing, they will drink all your beer.



All the self centered Man Bible mentions is men lying with men even though historically in the Middle East nubile boys were cherished in an off the record manner.


----------



## SuperMatt

Huntn said:


> *Separation of Church and State?*  HA-HA (USA) jokes on you.
> This rant is triggered regarding the SCOTUS Dobbs decision, over turning Roe vs Wade. Now hospitals in Texas are choosing not to treat women with pregnancy complications in fear of where it might lead?? What is the woman to do, crawl into her bed and don’t bother the medical profession, and pray.  But we’ll have lots of thoughts and prayers ready to go upon the Lord calling you home.  Oh what evil is at work here.
> 
> I did not start this in a neutral manner, because for decades I have considered it, gave it a chance, but how in the face of such poison dripping into the minds of human beings could you ever consider *religion* a positive force, even a fantasy positive force?  In the mind of human beings, it’s too easily corrupted, a tool for self benefit, for hypocritical power, oppression, and control.
> 
> Religion could easily  be classified at minimum a malady and for worst cases a mental illness. Infrequently, if ever, could be described as a positive force.
> 
> Think about the basics of religion.  It’s not about the pure value and self benefit of being good and  treating each other with love along with the joy of existence. That is a failed idea at best.  It almost automatically becomes  about intolerance based on the imagined standards of a diety who will punish us if we don’t follow the rules. The tragic aspect of this psychosis is that these rules are manufactured by our frequently selfish imaginations for our own benefit.
> 
> I’m not saying there is not a pure live and let live, care for one another religion out there, somewhere?  The  problem is with humanity’s haywire, often self serving, straight jacket imagination,  the bullshit, the oppression, and the distinct lack of critical thinking, in favor of wild eyed self serving and comforting fantasies.
> 
> And the worst is when religion leaves the realm of _I think_ to become not only  _I Know,_ but _I know what’s good for you too, and I’m intolerant of anything outside of my personal straight jacket. _And it then goes on to perform heinous acts in the name of The Lord.
> 
> The teachings of Jesus? Pfft…_Gotcha_!
> 
> The stinking, corrupting nature of religion as a tool to oppress is now splashed all over us, as a group heinous Right Wing Ideologues first bent over for the corporatracy, (Citizens United) but are now being consistent in their desire to create a Christian Theocracy (Hobby Lobby and Dobbs) shoving their religion control down our throats,  Get ready for a slew onerous right wing rulings as Christianity in control of SCOTUS marches us back to the 1950s.
> 
> And if you are of voting age, you’d better get your ass to the voting booth unless you don’t give a damn. Then there’s no whining allowed. The rest of us can sit around and lament that the Liberty Experiment* known as The United States of America was a farce and a failure. Or maybe Civil War 2.0
> 
> * Admittedly the definition of liberty is based on the mind of the individual thinking about it. Clearly the liberty of a hermit living on a deserted island is much different than than liberty as defined for millions of people living together. Unfortunately humanity especially in the USA upon which I am focused, has a high STUPID quotient. Along the lines of: _GUNS are the problem… lots more GUNS will make it better. _
> STU-PID_…_ selfishness, and lack of critical thinking in favor of self serving fantasies, are the root of most, if not all of our problems.



Jesus didn’t force his way onto people. It would be nice if his (supposed) followers took note of that.

The discussion of “when does a human life begin” could be an interesting philosophical question. It’s not to be decided by a bunch of religious fanatics and then forced on everybody. If you believe a zygote has a soul - good for you! Don’t get an abortion then. But not everybody sees things the way you do, so let them decide whether or not they want to reproduce.

I hope this attack on human rights turns more people off from the fundamentalist/evangelical churches.


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> Jesus didn’t force his way onto people. It would be nice if his (supposed) followers took note of that.
> 
> The discussion of “when does a human life begin” could be an interesting philosophical question. It’s not to be decided by a bunch of religious fanatics and then forced on everybody. If you believe a zygote has a soul - good for you! Don’t get an abortion then. But not everybody sees things the way you do, so let them decide whether or not they want to reproduce.
> 
> I hope this attack on human rights turns more people off from the fundamentalist/evangelical churches.



If humanity was struggling to gain a foot hold in a wilderness, you could say every successfully born fetus is vital and to be cherished. Let’s say 2 million years ago.

Today, when it’s 8 billion people breeding like bacteria until we overload the Earth, then this notion must be rethought. The absolute worst is when Christians insist that a child be born REGARDLESS of the circumstances, REGARDLESS if the mother will die, or a child who was raped, it’s heinous, disgusting, pathetic the distance these people will go to enforce their personal oppressive  fantasy upon others. It‘s where The Christian Right Theocracy leads us…if we let it, then by God we deserve the BS.   

Btw, are they thinking of humanity as a whole? Hell No. They can’t even follow their own religious rule book on the topic, regarding abortion, had to make up some of their own shit up and claim to know that’s what God wants. The jokes on everyone if you let this minority project and dictate their fantasies upon the majority. It’s one thing to be vested in a fantasy, quite another when you decide it’s your duty to oppress others with your fantasies.


----------



## Huntn

Interesting read, the difference between religion and mythology.









						Difference Between Religion and Mythology | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
					

Religion vs Mythology   Religion and Mythology are two terms that are often confused when it comes to their connotations, even though, there is some differ




					www.differencebetween.com
				




What is the Difference Between Religion and Mythology?​• Religion deals with the establishment of certain ideas that prove the existence of superhuman powers in the form of God or Gods. On the other hand, mythology is aimed at proving the truths and faiths established by religion.
• Mythology aims to establish the faiths put forward by any religion through stories and epics.
• Mythological characters are created in order to prove the validity of religious statements. Religion, on the other hand, depends on its mythology to survive.
• Religion deals with the customs and manners of a particular community or society based on the acceptance of some important faiths and beliefs. On the other hand, mythology does not deal with the customs and manners of a particular community or society based on the acceptance of faiths and beliefs.
• Religion is developed and propounded by great religious leaders whereas Mythology is developed and created by the sages and ancient saints that work for the establishment of truths in their respective religions.


----------



## Edd

Huntn said:


> Interesting read, the difference between religion and mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference Between Religion and Mythology | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
> 
> 
> Religion vs Mythology   Religion and Mythology are two terms that are often confused when it comes to their connotations, even though, there is some differ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.differencebetween.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the Difference Between Religion and Mythology?​• Religion deals with the establishment of certain ideas that prove the existence of superhuman powers in the form of God or Gods. On the other hand, mythology is aimed at proving the truths and faiths established by religion.
> • Mythology aims to establish the faiths put forward by any religion through stories and epics.
> • Mythological characters are created in order to prove the validity of religious statements. Religion, on the other hand, depends on its mythology to survive.
> • Religion deals with the customs and manners of a particular community or society based on the acceptance of some important faiths and beliefs. On the other hand, mythology does not deal with the customs and manners of a particular community or society based on the acceptance of faiths and beliefs.
> • Religion is developed and propounded by great religious leaders whereas Mythology is developed and created by the sages and ancient saints that work for the establishment of truths in their respective religions.



Both are vehicles for lies, IMO. Therefore, differences between them are trivial to me.


----------



## shadow puppet

I was raised Catholic but felt everything was deeply ensconced in guilt.  In my teens my Mom allowed me to explore so through friends, I was exposed to Judaism, Mormonism and Buddhism.  I later realized I just wanted to follow the natural cycles of Mother nature and the planet.  I'm probably more Druid than anything.


----------



## lizkat

To me mythology (in any culture) has been an attempt to explain to successive generations events or forces that were not understood at the time, including but not limited to natural phenomena like lightning or earthquakes.  

Religion on the other hand seems always to be based on an organizing principle in a given society,  and is meant to establish and then maintain respect for or actual worship of a leader or a deity.   The idea itself can be secular, i.e. simply to reduce incidents of anarchy or other antisocial behavior in a local (and potentially and eventually in a broader) group of people.

Tribal elders originally may have asserted themselves as extended "head of household" figures in a village.  After all, every child sooner or later runs into "because I said so" as the reason to quit acting out and obey the command of a more powerful figure.  To the extent an adult can persuade other adults that he or she retains that power, the seeds of leadership are born, whether by today's standards we'd consider that power secular or religious.

The farther down the road of history human beings travel, the further in the past and so (possibly) the murkier can be the explanation of how someone or something became an object of worship, veneration, fear, etc.   So we can end up with a perceived overlap of mythology and religion.

In polytheistic religions, the gods are often perceived as having separate powers to account for what happens in the course of a human life, whether it's joyful or sorrowful.  In monotheistic religions (and in modern day cults), a leader can over time acquire some of the attributes of the acknowledged deity,  and so is sometimes equally perceived as omniscient, omnipotent and deterministic. 

But in some religions the fatalist idea that "that's life and ya can't do nothin' about it" is muted or modified by teachings that humans have the ability to change, and so to affect for the better their own lives on earth, and also the lives of others.  This idea is often proffered by religious leaders as a way of pleasing a deity or deities...  and not coincidentally can also include the idea of materially supporting the leadership. 

Often but not always the idea of an afterlife for humans is involved, whether asserted as spiritual or as reincarnation or a resurrection of the body in another mode of being.   In a way that sort of closes the gap between religion and mythology, since there may be an emphasis in some religions on the idea that not all mysteries can be understood by mere humans.

Some religions teach only what has seemingly sprung from tribal memory, from oral history passed through generations, on scripture from the times after the gift of writing "appeared" among human skills. 

Some religions are more accepting than others of the "appearance" --the evolution--  of other gifts and talents of human beings,  including data collection and scientific investigations.   Some religions seem to get stuck in the past, literally, per scriptures they have inherited,  and so have difficulty allowing their beliefs to expand over time. Some religions seem fairly comfortable existing side by side with expansion of scientific knowledge, even if practitioners tend to compartmentalize their attention to one or the other at a given moment.

A big problem with religions in the world humans occupy today is when secular leaders decide that tenets of a particular religion (their own) should govern more of civil society than it currently does, for example in a democracy.   No one likes losing power. Democratic governments try to share power according to the will of the people, although with an overlay of agreed-upon rules to prevent the disaster that is anarchy. 

But religions may tend to consolidate power and also to mystify it,  and either way to center it in a hierarchy with a deity at the top and just a few self-selecting individuals as intercessors and leaders of the rest of the people. That only really works as long as those people accept that interference with whatever their own ideas might be for a satisfactory human life. 

When it doesn't work, a religion or cult experiences a falling away, or a schism into another sect or denomination.   In secular government gone to a failing dictatorship or a colonial rebellion,  the results are variously a coup, a revolution, a civil war, a demand for independence.  Whoever leads a given entity out of one of those conflicts may eventually end up becoming a new and enduring figure in human mythology, akin to a priest or god even if head of a secular government. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Huntn

lizkat said:


> To me mythology (in any culture) has been an attempt to explain to successive generations events or forces that were not understood at the time, including but not limited to natural phenomena like lightning or earthquakes.
> 
> Religion on the other hand seems always to be based on an organizing principle in a given society,  and is meant to establish and then maintain respect for or actual worship of a leader or a deity.   The idea itself can be secular, i.e. simply to reduce incidents of anarchy or other antisocial behavior in a local (and potentially and eventually in a broader) group of people.
> 
> Tribal elders originally may have asserted themselves as extended "head of household" figures in a village.  After all, every child sooner or later runs into "because I said so" as the reason to quit acting out and obey the command of a more powerful figure.  To the extent an adult can persuade other adults that he or she retains that power, the seeds of leadership are born, whether by today's standards we'd consider that power secular or religious.
> 
> The farther down the road of history human beings travel, the further in the past and so (possibly) the murkier can be the explanation of how someone or something became an object of worship, veneration, fear, etc.   So we can end up with a perceived overlap of mythology and religion.
> 
> In polytheistic religions, the gods are often perceived as having separate powers to account for what happens in the course of a human life, whether it's joyful or sorrowful.  In monotheistic religions (and in modern day cults), a leader can over time acquire some of the attributes of the acknowledged deity,  and so is sometimes equally perceived as omniscient, omnipotent and deterministic.
> 
> But in some religions the fatalist idea that "that's life and ya can't do nothin' about it" is muted or modified by teachings that humans have the ability to change, and so to affect for the better their own lives on earth, and also the lives of others.  This idea is often proffered by religious leaders as a way of pleasing a deity or deities...  and not coincidentally can also include the idea of materially supporting the leadership.
> 
> Often but not always the idea of an afterlife for humans is involved, whether asserted as spiritual or as reincarnation or a resurrection of the body in another mode of being.   In a way that sort of closes the gap between religion and mythology, since there may be an emphasis in some religions on the idea that not all mysteries can be understood by mere humans.
> 
> Some religions teach only what has seemingly sprung from tribal memory, from oral history passed through generations, on scripture from the times after the gift of writing "appeared" among human skills.
> 
> Some religions are more accepting than others of the "appearance" --the evolution--  of other gifts and talents of human beings,  including data collection and scientific investigations.   Some religions seem to get stuck in the past, literally, per scriptures they have inherited,  and so have difficulty allowing their beliefs to expand over time. Some religions seem fairly comfortable existing side by side with expansion of scientific knowledge, even if practitioners tend to compartmentalize their attention to one or the other at a given moment.
> 
> A big problem with religions in the world humans occupy today is when secular leaders decide that tenets of a particular religion (their own) should govern more of civil society than it currently does, for example in a democracy.   No one likes losing power. Democratic governments try to share power according to the will of the people, although with an overlay of agreed-upon rules to prevent the disaster that is anarchy.
> 
> But religions may tend to consolidate power and also to mystify it,  and either way to center it in a hierarchy with a deity at the top and just a few self-selecting individuals as intercessors and leaders of the rest of the people. That only really works as long as those people accept that interference with whatever their own ideas might be for a satisfactory human life.
> 
> When it doesn't work, a religion or cult experiences a falling away, or a schism into another sect or denomination.   In secular government gone to a failing dictatorship or a colonial rebellion,  the results are variously a coup, a revolution, a civil war, a demand for independence.  Whoever leads a given entity out of one of those conflicts may eventually end up becoming a new and enduring figure in human mythology, akin to a priest or god even if head of a secular government. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



In essence Mythology tries to validate a particular religion though stories. Based on this criteria should the Bible be considered Christianty’s mythology?


----------



## Huntn

Edd said:


> Both are vehicles for lies, IMO. Therefore, differences between them are trivial to me.



I accept the view that faith can be valuable as a vehicle for consideration, contemplation of your existence, similar to philosophy, but where it runs amuck is the organization of faith into religion for profit, control, and power. The bottom line, is _WE KNOW NOTHING_, life/our existence is a riddle and any answers *if* they arrive most likely will be outside the mortal realm.

We call this life reality, but in actuality, realistically it should be considered a dream, *not a normal state*, especially if you come from the crowd that believes in one life, because if it is one 70 year life out of eternity, our existence is not the normal state, which inevitably leads me to a discussion about spirituality. But I’ll stop there unless you signal otherwise.


----------



## Alli

Huntn said:


> In essence Mythology tries to validate a particular religion though stories. Based on this criteria should the Bible be considered Christianty’s mythology?



Yes.


----------



## lizkat

Huntn said:


> In essence Mythology tries to validate a particular religion though stories. Based on this criteria should the Bible be considered Christianty’s mythology?





Alli said:


> Yes.




I can't quite get there, no.

It can't really be that simple or we wouldn't already have centuries' worth of scholarly argument (and related archaeological endeavors)  over the historicity of figures in the Bible.   There are some figures who are by now generally acknowledged even by atheists to have existed and even to have ruled or fought over assorted actual geographical locations in the Middle East).  There are also some who've generally been accepted as examples of sheerly mythological or composite figures.  There remain differences about chronology, hierarchical or tribal status of some of the figures, locations in which they ruled or fought or just lived.

That such well known figures had already been mythologized by the time questions about their authenticity were raised by relatively modern scholars of history, religion or other disciplines would be natural. 

So I wouldn't necessarily say that the process of mythologizing any ancient figure (or modern ones for that matter) are meant to *validate* tenets of any of the religions that originated in that part of the world.

*Mythologizing* is a pretty natural process over time.  It may have elements of conscious glorification.

People remember events and other people differently over time, and over pretty short periods of time at that.​​Someone becomes more fierce in memory... for whatever reason.  Having descended from a warrior sounds good.   Maybe the old man was more of a stand up guy in memory than in actuality?​​Someone maybe didn't really get 86'd from a bar brawl that broke out one night,  but it could make the scene seem more vivid in the retelling,  so somehow that got in there..​
Now it may take "a leap of faith" to believe parts of certain mythologies, but that's optional, not essential. The mythology exists,  take it or leave it, in part or in whole.  Take it as fiction if you like, the stories are pretty riveting sometimes.   To buy into a mythological account is often to affirm that one belongs to a tribe, but it's not quite the same as a religion. Creation myths are a special form of mythologized history.

But *validation* of religious doctrine and references to scripture like the Bible as a part of that effort are a whole other thing really.  They are a conscious attempt to round up support for assertions of correct belief and/or correct conduct. At some point concepts like faith or grace may get thrown into the mix and they are not optional, they're part of the doctrine.  If you don't have faith... you pray to get it, etc.

The validation of a religion says hey, you need to buy into this.  Some religions have pretty rigid frameworks and expectations, others acknowledge human frailty and may promise hellfire for indulging those failings, or sometimes offer loopholes in exchange for assorted penances or efforts to improve.

Validation efforts may choose to ignore the fact that Biblical figures are naturally enough mythologized (doesn't mean they didn't exist) and also ignore the simple fact of forward progress through history:  that we know a whole lot more about the world we live in today than people did about their world when ancient writings were created:   compare and contrast if you will to the arguments Americans have about the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, only a few hundred years old:   is an AR15 today more or less the same as a musket?  Do we react today to a solar eclipse as prehistoric humans did?  They had religions too, we surmise aspects of the spiritual function of some of what we have discovered, but we are not sure about the details of any of them because we have only the likes of burial sites and monuments to work with, no written language past artistic expressions.

I've nothing against people's leaps of faith or belief in grace or rounding up particular and rational support for a religious belief,  but those religious validation frameworks are generally different processes to, the refining and revising and sometimes redacting of the stories of King David over thousands of years by different people.  Yes there could be reasons for some of those alterations of a mythological figure's adventures or attributes.   Yes they could be motivated by agendas of secular or religious leaders.  No they are not always conscious or in aid of a particular religion.  We're talking about thousands of years and relatively scant documentation...  and an evolving understanding of both natural phenomena and ourselves as we have continued to develop our human potential.   King David was like this. Or (redacted).  Well sorta like that.   Or (censored).  No, well really, like this most of the time because 37 different accounts of the same incident exist and only 5 are a little sketchy about where he was at the time.

There have definitely been attempts to correlate accounts in the Bible with information in other ancient historical records that have been discovered (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls) and with knowledge gained from archaeological digs.   Some of those efforts definitely run to religious validation.  This religion's view of some aspect of history in the area, versus another religion's take on the same scripture or the meaning of the same piece of ancient pottery found in a given location.   Similarly translations of the Bible that have tried to incorporate more recent knowledge of either archaeological digs or other improvements in the authenticity of figures mentioned in the scriptures or external ancient documents. But there are plenty agnostics or atheists who work on archaeological digs for love of the history,  regardless of how others may incorporate their findings into their own religious frameworks.


----------



## Alli

What about the story of the burning bush? Why is that doctrine rather than myth?

The issue I see is that the bible is a book of mythology, written by human men telling stories that they heard from other human men, aggrandizing the status of other human men.

I won’t even begin with the theory that if “the one god” is omnipotent, he could have lots of sons and send any number of them to earth to straighten things out.


----------



## lizkat

Alli said:


> What about the story of the burning bush? Why is that doctrine rather than myth?
> 
> The issue I see is that the bible is a book of mythology, written by human men telling stories that they heard from other human men, aggrandizing the status of other human men.
> 
> I won’t even begin with the theory that *if “the one god” is omnipotent, he could have lots of sons and send any number of them to earth to straighten things out.*




[ Re the bolding I stuck on the end of your post:  lately I've often pondered a line I've quoted before from an Editors' song... "If there really was a god here,  he'd have raised a hand by now." ]

Anyway.  Sure, the scriptures associated with lots of religions often contain mythology...   but scripture is only part of the foundations of a religion.

There are all sorts of stories in  the Bible, for instance, about what happens to people who don't follow what has been pointed out to them as the correct way to behave.  As you said,  "stories that they heard from other human men, aggrandizing the status of other human men."

But religious leaders of later times have all had to keep their own flock on the right path too.  What teenager hasn't rolled eyes and complained  "Well that was then, this is now..." when a parent starts up about how to behave and how they had to behave as a kid, and what happened when they didn't.  

So we get to religious admonitions or statements of creed that are not in scripture.  A religious leader seeks to unite people in a common, contemporary framework based on older principles.   They address belief (creeds, litanies, prayers) or behavior (what is ethical, moral) or both.  They may sometimes expand assertions of belief, as a Roman Catholic pope did in 1950 to "settle" the question of whatever happened to the mother of Christ at the end of her human life,  since in scripture she certainly had had some unusual attributes.  The Pope *decreed* that she did not just die and rot in some tomb but was simply taken up to heaven, her body and soul intact...  and that any RC who did not buy into that had "fallen away" from the religion.

Some religions have catechisms spelling it all out as a way of helping instruct newcomers or children.  Some have prayerbooks, some have relied on the cleric to interpret parts of scripture and relate it to modern situations.  Clerics in ages of illiteracy, or before the printing press and the advent of scripture printed in the vernacular, simply told people what the Bible said, whether or not what they said was a matter of fact, a loose translation or a convenient addition.   Once people could read the text for themselves, some clerics had to resort to new doctrines that heightened their own infallibility on matters of dogma.  All that explication and expansion is process, but it's one of an attempt to validate a religion,  not just an adoption of scripture as mythology.


----------



## Huntn

lizkat said:


> I can't quite get there, no.
> 
> It can't really be that simple or we wouldn't already have centuries' worth of scholarly argument (and related archaeological endeavors)  over the historicity of figures in the Bible.   There are some figures who are by now generally acknowledged even by atheists to have existed and even to have ruled or fought over assorted actual geographical locations in the Middle East).  There are also some who've generally been accepted as examples of sheerly mythological or composite figures.  There remain differences about chronology, hierarchical or tribal status of some of the figures, locations in which they ruled or fought or just lived.
> 
> That such well known figures had already been mythologized by the time questions about their authenticity were raised by relatively modern scholars of history, religion or other disciplines would be natural.
> 
> So I wouldn't necessarily say that the process of mythologizing any ancient figure (or modern ones for that matter) are meant to *validate* tenets of any of the religions that originated in that part of the world.
> 
> *Mythologizing* is a pretty natural process over time.  It may have elements of conscious glorification.
> 
> People remember events and other people differently over time, and over pretty short periods of time at that.​​Someone becomes more fierce in memory... for whatever reason.  Having descended from a warrior sounds good.   Maybe the old man was more of a stand up guy in memory than in actuality?​​Someone maybe didn't really get 86'd from a bar brawl that broke out one night,  but it could make the scene seem more vivid in the retelling,  so somehow that got in there..​
> Now it may take "a leap of faith" to believe parts of certain mythologies, but that's optional, not essential. The mythology exists,  take it or leave it, in part or in whole.  Take it as fiction if you like, the stories are pretty riveting sometimes.   To buy into a mythological account is often to affirm that one belongs to a tribe, but it's not quite the same as a religion. Creation myths are a special form of mythologized history.
> 
> But *validation* of religious doctrine and references to scripture like the Bible as a part of that effort are a whole other thing really.  They are a conscious attempt to round up support for assertions of correct belief and/or correct conduct. At some point concepts like faith or grace may get thrown into the mix and they are not optional, they're part of the doctrine.  If you don't have faith... you pray to get it, etc.
> 
> The validation of a religion says hey, you need to buy into this.  Some religions have pretty rigid frameworks and expectations, others acknowledge human frailty and may promise hellfire for indulging those failings, or sometimes offer loopholes in exchange for assorted penances or efforts to improve.
> 
> Validation efforts may choose to ignore the fact that Biblical figures are naturally enough mythologized (doesn't mean they didn't exist) and also ignore the simple fact of forward progress through history:  that we know a whole lot more about the world we live in today than people did about their world when ancient writings were created:   compare and contrast if you will to the arguments Americans have about the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, only a few hundred years old:   is an AR15 today more or less the same as a musket?  Do we react today to a solar eclipse as prehistoric humans did?  They had religions too, we surmise aspects of the spiritual function of some of what we have discovered, but we are not sure about the details of any of them because we have only the likes of burial sites and monuments to work with, no written language past artistic expressions.
> 
> I've nothing against people's leaps of faith or belief in grace or rounding up particular and rational support for a religious belief,  but those religious validation frameworks are generally different processes to, the refining and revising and sometimes redacting of the stories of King David over thousands of years by different people.  Yes there could be reasons for some of those alterations of a mythological figure's adventures or attributes.   Yes they could be motivated by agendas of secular or religious leaders.  No they are not always conscious or in aid of a particular religion.  We're talking about thousands of years and relatively scant documentation...  and an evolving understanding of both natural phenomena and ourselves as we have continued to develop our human potential.   King David was like this. Or (redacted).  Well sorta like that.   Or (censored).  No, well really, like this most of the time because 37 different accounts of the same incident exist and only 5 are a little sketchy about where he was at the time.
> 
> There have definitely been attempts to correlate accounts in the Bible with information in other ancient historical records that have been discovered (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls) and with knowledge gained from archaeological digs.   Some of those efforts definitely run to religious validation.  This religion's view of some aspect of history in the area, versus another religion's take on the same scripture or the meaning of the same piece of ancient pottery found in a given location.   Similarly translations of the Bible that have tried to incorporate more recent knowledge of either archaeological digs or other improvements in the authenticity of figures mentioned in the scriptures or external ancient documents. But there are plenty agnostics or atheists who work on archaeological digs for love of the history,  regardless of how others may incorporate their findings into their own religious frameworks.



I respect your opinion, and don’t hold your faith against you. How could I, it’s faith,  but I’ll counter to some degree from my perspective.

I remember a history channel episode where they went to Juruselim and  asked where was Jesus born? No body knows and not only that, while I don’t claim to be any kind of an expert, I read that in Historical city records outside of what are regarded as religious based documents written hundreds of years later, there is no substantial record of Jesus, including Jesus being crucified. That does not mean he did not exist, but there is nothing more substantiated, than a story, maybe one hell of a good story.

Now my issue is that even if you had extensive writings produced by ancient authors hundreds of years after the fact (of when Jesus was alive)  as a modern person trying to make sense of it, you having nothing to indicate whether we are seeing the result of several hundred years of folklore being handed down, we know how that develops over time, then being translated, and we don’t know if the author believed what they were writing was fact or was just exercising their creative license.

Because of my reasoning, I see the Bible as a story (published 1000 years? Later) is used to give basis to a religion, that Jesus never even proposed himself. He was a Jew, preaching to others, by the meager accounts produced, had no interest at all in splitting away from Judaism. That was up to religious opportunists several hundreds of years later to decide, hey, here’s a story, what a great idea!

And although I believe though spirituality you should think about your place in the Universe, and that organized religion can have a good purpose, help people, give comfort, achieve order and like minded standards, it is all too often becomes a mechanism for power and control, with zero facts, just _I become the powerful mouthpiece of a deity _and all the benefits that come with  that.


lizkat said:


> [ Re the bolding I stuck on the end of your post:  lately I've often pondered a line I've quoted before from an Editors' song... "If there really was a god here,  he'd have raised a hand by now." ]
> 
> Anyway.  Sure, the scriptures associated with lots of religions often contain mythology...   but scripture is only part of the foundations of a religion.
> 
> There are all sorts of stories in  the Bible, for instance, about what happens to people who don't follow what has been pointed out to them as the correct way to behave.  As you said,  "stories that they heard from other human men, aggrandizing the status of other human men."
> 
> But religious leaders of later times have all had to keep their own flock on the right path too.  What teenager hasn't rolled eyes and complained  "Well that was then, this is now..." when a parent starts up about how to behave and how they had to behave as a kid, and what happened when they didn't.
> 
> So we get to religious admonitions or statements of creed that are not in scripture.  A religious leader seeks to unite people in a common, contemporary framework based on older principles.   They address belief (creeds, litanies, prayers) or behavior (what is ethical, moral) or both.  They may sometimes expand assertions of belief, as a Roman Catholic pope did in 1950 to "settle" the question of whatever happened to the mother of Christ at the end of her human life,  since in scripture she certainly had had some unusual attributes.  The Pope *decreed* that she did not just die and rot in some tomb but was simply taken up to heaven, her body and soul intact...  and that any RC who did not buy into that had "fallen away" from the religion.
> 
> Some religions have catechisms spelling it all out as a way of helping instruct newcomers or children.  Some have prayerbooks, some have relied on the cleric to interpret parts of scripture and relate it to modern situations.  Clerics in ages of illiteracy, or before the printing press and the advent of scripture printed in the vernacular, simply told people what the Bible said, whether or not what they said was a matter of fact, a loose translation or a convenient addition.   Once people could read the text for themselves, some clerics had to resort to new doctrines that heightened their own infallibility on matters of dogma.  All that explication and expansion is process, but it's one of an attempt to validate a religion,  not just an adoption of scripture as mythology.



_There are all sorts of stories in the Bible, for instance, about what happens to people who don't follow what has been pointed out to them as the correct way to behave. As you said, "stories that they heard from other human men, aggrandizing the status of other human men."_

I say if not mythology, if functions in the same way as mythology, stories used to validate a religion. I’ll also say religion when it attempts to answer questions, easily reaches a point where it becomes a self validating mass delusion and the scholars over the eons arguing for it, already believe It, and attempt to turn it into fact, when it can never be anything more than faith. It‘s never approached in a neutral scientific method or the major holy books never would have been created.


----------



## lizkat

I certainly was not defending my faith in those posts. My faith is in human nature, fool that I may be.  I regard the Bible as interesting literature with some factual components,  a fair amount of historicity, a lot of redactions and errors and a few flights of fancy.  I came to those conclusions over decades of bumping into commentary from scholars and occasionally looking up some more.  They are not what was taught me in catechism for an Episcopalian confirmation.

Back to the question of mythology vs religion and I will use my former denomination as example.

Some Protestant sects don't even think Episcopalians *are *Christians, despite the fact that one of their own most basic assertions of belief references the same exact trinitarian deity in the same words and even in the same text, the Apostle's Creed.   So go figure.

That's why I say that religions (asserted specific doctrines, rituals, practices)  are a thing apart from whatever mythologies a given religion might reference or even share as references.

Mythologies are stories and usually have some factual components, with additions over time including  enhancement after the fact, some redactions and revisions.. including copying and translation errors.  

Mythologies can be read as literature, investigated as to their historicity or used to support religious assertions (of belief, of conduct or of both).

*A mythology itself does not tell you to live a certain way.*  It tells you how certain people in the past lived (or may have lived, give or take a few fairytales and usually some redactions and errors) including what they believed, what they were told, how they responded, what happened to them if they obeyed or disobeyed,  or were just bit players.

*Religion is a prescribed way of living in the present* according to specific doctrines, rituals, practices. 

Part of a religion may include asserting that you must accept as "truth" what is in certain texts (scripture, mythologies). Many religions have additional texts (creeds, catechisms, liturgies, prayer books, commentaries).  Most but not all religions also have hierarchies of clerics who interpret how those texts illuminate the concept of a deity, help establish faith or serve to guide expected human conduct. 

The clerics or the extra texts referred to by them may also "mark the days" or note the passage of not only the seasons of a year but outline specific ways of formally acknowledging significant human experiences in the context of a religion.  Some of the oldest of such markings* are* seasonal and so would also be referenced in most mythologies.  

 But again the texts are not a religion.   Religion is prescribed belief and conduct in the here and now. 

The religion-specific texts added in support of doctrine in "traditional" Christian religions would include those for sacraments defined in the religion (baptism and confirmation, communion with the deity, ordination of clerics) as well as acknowledging the importance of human events like birth, marriage, illness, death.

Confusing the two -- mythological scripture and religion--   is how that televangelist purportedly believes that God has blessed him with enough faith to be able to explain to you that it's the Bible behind your obligation to discover your faith in Jesus who is your sole salvation... and so the Bible is surely behind your desire to send him $25 or whatever you can spare right now to support his guidance of your journey to faith.

That last bit is his religious riff on scriptural mythology....  and if you do poke around in the Bible you can definitely find references to tithing.  Those are stories, and likely true.

But what he's saying is just a solicitation to support his particular religious mission, which is possibly mostly to keep his bank account in the black.  We don't really know,  until some journalist breaks a story and THAT becomes part of "biblical mythology."  In the meantime it's part of some viewer's religion.


----------



## Huntn

@lizkat I respect your faith. As you can tell, my faith is _I know nothing! _ We are all in the same boat making the best of the mystery of our existence.


----------



## lizkat

Huntn said:


> @lizkat I respect your faith. As you can tell, my faith is _I know nothing! _ We are all in the same boat making the best of the mystery of our existence.




I find it so interesting that you keep coming back to faith...  when I have thought of this thread as being only and specifically about the question of whether mythology and religion are different to each other.

I had only mentioned faith because it is a component of most religions in matters of dogma,   but its relevance to mythology is tangential or external.   Faith or belief in a mythology is up to a reader, so not actually a part of what makes "religion" and "mythology" different to each other.

So by my own lights this post on "faith" belongs in some other thread but I'll hang it up here anyway

Faith as a component of some religions is an active process,  one that is meant to bridge gaps between what can be understood and what remains a mystery.

It's like a parent's final answer to the pesky five year old saying "but why?" as response to one answer after another.  Why this?  _Because that_.  But why that?  _Because something else_.  But why why why?...  i don't get it!  Why??​​Finally a weary parent closes off debate by saying _because I said so and that's that._​​So faith could be seen as arrival at allowing a deity to take responsibility for a mystery, to let it go, to accept the mystery, to allow for the possibility that humans cannot resolve some mysteries.
​Maybe  a person can get to that state of acceptance or belief, and maybe not.   Some people drop out of religions because they experience lack of faith as failure, either their own or that of the religion itself... asking too much of a particular human being.   Other people are more tolerant of their lack of faith or are comfortable in a religious framework despite not being a complete believer.​​Some clerics however will abandon careers because what might usually be for them a situational lack of faith just never leaves them after some particular crisis,  and so makes it impossible for them to counsel others to strive to have a faith that they no longer experience.​
But, faith, as a process or enabler of belief,  has nothing at all to do with any "mythology" per se.

A mythology describes activities,  but of itself it's a passive thing:  a text, a book or even a painting,

One can read a textual mythology and figure it's a bunch of stories.  Or one can read it and think of it as a kind of historical fiction.   People recorded it in the past,  and we get to look at it and make of it what we will.

During any of that, the mythology sits there, waiting.  Maybe you will edit it.  It does not care.

Whether we end up believing the stories or not, that decision concludes a process,  and can be an arduous task.  Whether we end up able to believe what some religious leader says we should or must take from those stories and use to conduct our own lives is yet another process.  Those considerations can be parts of a religious framework.  Believing some of what's in those stories, striving to accept what a religious leader says one must take "on faith", those all involve active processes.​
But the object of our consideration, the stories, the mythologies, are inert and just await our attention.

So where does faith come in?   A friend of mine who was an RC priest once said that the poem "Of Mere Being" by Wallace Stevens was the most succinct yet somehow all-encompassing statement of faith -- as an active acceptance of just being human-- that he'd ever read.   The poem is a far cry from any religion's dogma.

This friend had a Jesuit education and razor wit and could hammer anyone back to the stone age in a debate on anything  (pick a side and he'd take the other) but his avocation was seeking more ways of seeing how faith fits into religion, spirituality, acceptance of the human condition.


Of Mere Being​By Wallace Stevens​​The palm at the end of the mind,​Beyond the last thought, rises​In the bronze decor,​​A gold-feathered bird​Sings in the palm, without human meaning,​Without human feeling, a foreign song.​​You know then that it is not the reason​That makes us happy or unhappy.​The bird sings. Its feathers shine.​​The palm stands on the edge of space.​The wind moves slowly in the branches.​The bird's fire-fangled feathers dangle down.​


----------



## Huntn

lizkat said:


> I find it so interesting that you keep coming back to faith...  when I have thought of this thread as being only and specifically about the question of whether mythology and religion are different to each other.
> 
> I had only mentioned faith because it is a component of most religions in matters of dogma,   but its relevance to mythology is tangential or external.   Faith or belief in a mythology is up to a reader, so not actually a part of what makes "religion" and "mythology" different to each other.
> 
> So by my own lights this post on "faith" belongs in some other thread but I'll hang it up here anyway
> 
> Faith as a component of some religions is an active process,  one that is meant to bridge gaps between what can be understood and what remains a mystery.
> 
> It's like a parent's final answer to the pesky five year old saying "but why?" as response to one answer after another.  Why this?  _Because that_.  But why that?  _Because something else_.  But why why why?...  i don't get it!  Why??​​Finally a weary parent closes off debate by saying _because I said so and that's that._​​So faith could be seen as arrival at allowing a deity to take responsibility for a mystery, to let it go, to accept the mystery, to allow for the possibility that humans cannot resolve some mysteries.
> ​Maybe  a person can get to that state of acceptance or belief, and maybe not.   Some people drop out of religions because they experience lack of faith as failure, either their own or that of the religion itself... asking too much of a particular human being.   Other people are more tolerant of their lack of faith or are comfortable in a religious framework despite not being a complete believer.​​Some clerics however will abandon careers because what might usually be for them a situational lack of faith just never leaves them after some particular crisis,  and so makes it impossible for them to counsel others to strive to have a faith that they no longer experience.​
> But, faith, as a process or enabler of belief,  has nothing at all to do with any "mythology" per se.
> 
> A mythology describes activities,  but of itself it's a passive thing:  a text, a book or even a painting,
> 
> One can read a textual mythology and figure it's a bunch of stories.  Or one can read it and think of it as a kind of historical fiction.   People recorded it in the past,  and we get to look at it and make of it what we will.
> 
> During any of that, the mythology sits there, waiting.  Maybe you will edit it.  It does not care.
> 
> Whether we end up believing the stories or not, that decision concludes a process,  and can be an arduous task.  Whether we end up able to believe what some religious leader says we should or must take from those stories and use to conduct our own lives is yet another process.  Those considerations can be parts of a religious framework.  Believing some of what's in those stories, striving to accept what a religious leader says one must take "on faith", those all involve active processes.​
> But the object of our consideration, the stories, the mythologies, are inert and just await our attention.
> 
> So where does faith come in?   A friend of mine who was an RC priest once said that the poem "Of Mere Being" by Wallace Stevens was the most succinct yet somehow all-encompassing statement of faith -- as an active acceptance of just being human-- that he'd ever read.   The poem is a far cry from any religion's dogma.
> 
> This friend had a Jesuit education and razor wit and could hammer anyone back to the stone age in a debate on anything  (pick a side and he'd take the other) but his avocation was seeking more ways of seeing how faith fits into religion, spirituality, acceptance of the human condition.
> 
> 
> Of Mere Being​By Wallace Stevens​​The palm at the end of the mind,​Beyond the last thought, rises​In the bronze decor,​​A gold-feathered bird​Sings in the palm, without human meaning,​Without human feeling, a foreign song.​​You know then that it is not the reason​That makes us happy or unhappy.​The bird sings. Its feathers shine.​​The palm stands on the edge of space.​The wind moves slowly in the branches.​The bird's fire-fangled feathers dangle down.​



The stories maybe inert, but they represent the majority if not the entirety of the foundation of any religion as far as the argument for and validation for the masses.

As applied to this discussion, Catholicism has a treasure trove of ancient documents hidden away and they decided what should be included in the official guide, translated and arguably authored the Bible as they thought best suited their position of power and position of self appointed spokesperson for God, To say this is the word of God is the masterpiece for herding the sheep.

For Christianity, the Bible is the foundation, the guidebook for Christianity in it’s entirety for  all intents and purposes.  A preacher can tell his parables, relate modern experiences, or make his/her analogies on Sunday, does this not represent modern mythology? If not the story itself, then the conclusions of what it represents. And if an official basis, a validation of the  fundamental  proofs are required, a quote from the Bible is usually inserted.

I agree faith is active, but if it is directly related to any discussion about religion. It is faith or lack of, the active process of mental deliberation that determines what direction and individual takes regarding belief/religion..

And since I am making an argument that the Bible represents the mythology of Christianity, to clarify and be fair and not single out Christianity,  I would say the same thing about the Koran or the Holy book of any religion that uses stories to validate itself, including presenting itself as a pseudo-historical document that offers a foundation of belief that involves specifics, and hard and fast rules.

If the job is to sell a religion (no accusations implied) you either have to have a really good story, be a really persuasive  public speaker,  and ideally have a moldy old book to cite as your proof.


----------



## Alli

lizkat said:


> *Religion is a prescribed way of living in the present* according to specific doctrines, rituals, practices.



I would suggest that you are defining ”organized religion” rather than religion in general. There is a huge difference right there. Enough for another thread!


----------



## lizkat

Alli said:


> I would suggest that you are defining ”organized religion” rather than religion in general. There is a huge difference right there. *Enough for another thread!*




Indeed...

@Huntn   I completely agree that the Bible represents the mythology put to use by Christian religions.  Parts of it are also relevant to other major religions.

How it gets put to use is entirely a denominational thing:   a religion is *not *the mythology it uses.

A mythology can be used by more than one religion.    The Bible is one such mythology.   It can also be used by historians, philosophers, world literature professors and so on.  Certainly by nonbelievers.

I think we should have a different thread to discuss some of the points your posts have made.  They really belong in a thread more about *the pros and cons of religions*...   and less about whether religion "is" the same thing as the mythology or sacred texts that some religions use to buttress their assertions of correct conduct or belief.   

I'll take this opportunity to note that I haven't intended any remarks in my own posts here to be either a defense of or an attack on "religion"  (or "organized religion" for that matter), much less the politics that get entwined in modern discussions of how religions --including those of other people--  can and do affect our lives today regardless of our personal beliefs.

 My own first reaction when I run into a news story that may involve both politics and religion tends to run along lines of  "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." 

That too is aside from my personal beliefs, and comes from a fairly reflexive reliance on my sense of the rightness of "separation of church and state."  But of course it's more complicated than that,  and it always was,  ever since the first clash between men and/or their concepts of a deity. 

So on to a thread about the pros and cons of religions and secular concerns in the 21st century?


----------



## Huntn

lizkat said:


> Indeed...
> 
> @Huntn   I completely agree that the Bible represents the mythology put to use by Christian religions.  Parts of it are also relevant to other major religions.
> 
> How it gets put to use is entirely a denominational thing:   a religion is *not *the mythology it uses.
> 
> A mythology can be used by more than one religion.    The Bible is one such mythology.   It can also be used by historians, philosophers, world literature professors and so on.  Certainly by nonbelievers.
> 
> I think we should have a different thread to discuss some of the points your posts have made.  They really belong in a thread more about *the pros and cons of religions*...   and less about whether religion "is" the same thing as the mythology or sacred texts that some religions use to buttress their assertions of correct conduct or belief.
> 
> I'll take this opportunity to note that I haven't intended any remarks in my own posts here to be either a defense of or an attack on "religion"  (or "organized religion" for that matter), much less the politics that get entwined in modern discussions of how religions --including those of other people--  can and do affect our lives today regardless of our personal beliefs.
> 
> My own first reaction when I run into a news story that may involve both politics and religion tends to run along lines of  "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
> 
> That too is aside from my personal beliefs, and comes from a fairly reflexive reliance on my sense of the rightness of "separation of church and state."  But of course it's more complicated than that,  and it always was,  ever since the first clash between men and/or their concepts of a deity.
> 
> So on to a thread about the pros and cons of religions and secular concerns in the 21st century?



I’d suggest the thread *Let’s talk Religion and Faith*. …or feel free to start another.


----------



## lizkat

Huntn said:


> I’d suggest the thread *Let’s talk Religion and Faith*. …or feel free to start another.




Serves me right for bailing into a thread at the point of a new subtopic without realizing it was a subtopic.

Looking for suitable emojis...     

So we've been here all along.


----------

