Interventionist God or Non Interventionist God?

[revsdd]

No, I'm not getting the point. Humans have a conscience, that can be well or not-so-well developed. Doesn't take religion to develop a conscience - but it does take some sort of education to move humans from the amygdala to the frontal cortex.

Where do you get this concept that religious people "have A belief in A god that they must obey". Buddism and Confucianism have no god, hinduism has plenty of them and "obeying" isn't any kind of hard and fast rule.

I would suggest that it's very debatable whether even most Christians have "a belief in a God that they must obey." Some, perhaps, - mostly fundamentalists - but there is also the idea that Christians are not under the law, and the very concept of grace suggests that Christians believe in a God who is willing to forgive when people don't act as God desires. Islam and Judaism portray God as merciful. Certain extremists choose to ignore those depictions of God. As many have pointed out, it's interesting that extremists tend to demand that the Ten Commandments rather than the Beatitudes be posted in courthouses.

Most atheists do tend to take religious extremists, and use them to paint a caricature of all believers. It's certainly true that religion can be abused to promote hatred and violence. But any passionate belief in anything can do that. Riots break out after sporting events. Remember Vancouver after the Stanley Cup Finals a few years back. Then, the justification was "they weren't real hockey fans." The reality is that people who hate look for things they can use as excuses to hate. Religion is certainly one of those things. But whatever you're passionate about - from Jesus to the Canucks - can suffice.

 

[Neo]

Religions and politics have an overwhelming tendency to produce separation and the old "us verses them" attitude that's easily been the source of the vast majority of conflicts in our world. Regarding religion, we saw it with the Crusades and we're seeing it again right now with the so called "Christian" Trump administration and it's politics of America First. People are being questioned about their religion and their politics before being allowed to enter into the US. This will not produce peace in our world. Only the opposite.

 

[Neo]

From a quick Google search: "I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" is one of Jesus' most controversial statements because its meaning has many interpretations. The immediate context is the entire verse of Matthew 10:34, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword."

The sword of cleavage is being manifest before our eyes. We are either on the side of evolution or we are on the side of involution. We are either working with nature or against it.

Trump now has a cast of big business billionaires who have only one end game. And history has a lot of examples of how that turns out.

The choice is ours, the people's voice will be heard, the materialists are playing their last card now. I know this because it's already been seen in the spiritual planes by prophets and Masters like the Christ, etc. And the alternative is now, with the sabre rattling of nuclear weapons again, simply unthinkable.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

No, I'm not getting the point.

And it seems you never will.

Humans have a conscience, that can be well or not-so-well developed. Doesn't take religion to develop a conscience - but it does take some sort of education to move humans from the amygdala to the frontal cortex.

Unrelated rant.

Where do you get this concept that religious people "have A belief in A god that they must obey".

The Oxford and the Cambridge english dictionaries have the definition of religion as being the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. And the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

Buddism and Confucianism have no god,

Those both fail to fit with the above definitions.

hinduism has plenty of them and "obeying" isn't any kind of hard and fast rule.

Hinduism is all about surrender. A hindu believer completely gives up his own will and subjects his thoughts, ideas, and deeds to the will and teachings of a higher power. In the bhagavad gita, Krishna said "Those who, renouncing all actions in Me, and regarding Me as the Supreme, worship Me... For those whose thoughts have entered into Me, I am soon the deliverer from the ocean of death and transmigration. Keep your mind on Me alone, your intellect on Me. Thus you shall dwell in Me hereafter.
And he who serves Me with the yoga of unswerving devotion, transcending these qualities [binary opposites, like good and evil, pain and pleasure] is ready for liberation in Brahman.
I consider the yogi-devotee, who lovingly contemplates on Me with supreme faith, and whose mind is ever absorbed in Me, to be the best of all the yogis.
After attaining Me, the great souls do not incur rebirth in this miserable transitory world, because they have attained the highest perfection."
So it is clear that they strive to totally obey.
You don't have to agree with me, that is your prerogative. So If I were you I'd leave it at that.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Can we sort of confirm where we are at, or not at, please, Pavlos?

Can we summarize by saying that you think, in some sort of balance sheet in your own head, that "religion" has done more harm than good? There's a lot of evidence to the contrary. But no formula, and I haven't seen a formula from you yet, so who knows? We're both agnostic.

 

[chansen]

Religion is unique from anything else people get passionate about. Christianity has a central text that can not be changed, that is in dire need of a massive edit, if not a complete rewrite. A simple reading of multiple passages tells the reader under which situations God would be willing to kill people. It tells people what sort of sex is permissible, and what the penalties are if those rules are broken. It values blood sacrifice in a way that most of us would find abhorrent today.

Christians have a problem in the bible. You can't admit that you do, but you clearly do. You should get Sean Spicer to deny the problem. He has experience in that area.

I don't think most Christians want a blood sacrifice. Just like guys know that, despite the rules against premarital sex, Catholic school girls are generally the most promiscuous. Christains generally don't go around looking to meter out biblical punishment. But they also generally don't take the bible that seriously. And that's a good thing.

We don't need to eradicate religion. We need to get every kid an education. Every kid needs a loving family and a place to call home. We need to make it so that kids don't hate so early or need to pretend that they are due something in a next life.

We'll never eradicate it, but the things thate lift people up are also the things that see a decline in religiousity. No one needs to eradicate religion, and it's not right to think that's a good idea. The lifting up of people will see that religion ceases to be a dominant force in world politics. And once that happens, I don't care what you believe. As long as your imaginary friend doesn't gain control over the laws, I'm cool.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Most Christians don't have a 'bible' problem any more than Jews have a 'torah' problem. Religions can and should be social clubs for the god-struck.

 

[chansen]

Of course the Jews have a Torah problem.

 

[revsdd]

Religion is unique from anything else people get passionate about. Christianity has a central text that can not be changed, that is in dire need of a massive edit, if not a complete rewrite. A simple reading of multiple passages tells the reader under which situations God would be willing to kill people. It tells people what sort of sex is permissible, and what the penalties are if those rules are broken. It values blood sacrifice in a way that most of us would find abhorrent today.

Christians have a problem in the bible. You can't admit that you do, but you clearly do. You should get Sean Spicer to deny the problem. He has experience in that area.

In some respects I actually agree with you on that - although I would argue that the "problem" is not in the Bible but in the Christians. It's with people who take an ancient text and assume that every last period and comma still speaks to today's society - which of course they don't, because even literalists don't take the Bible literally. They say they do, but they don't. From time to time we even see that here - such as the infamous comment from one of our members that "James chose the wrong word." Most literalists, for example, will look at Leviticus and say "hmmm. Homosexuality bad because of Leviticus 18:22, but in spite of Leviticus 19:28 we'll give a pass to people with tattoos." And, actually, if you read all of Leviticus 18-19 you'd probably be in agreement with most of the sexual rules that are laid down. I doubt that you'd be in favour of bestiality or incest or selling your daughter as a prostitute, for example. Again, the problem is not the Bible. It's that portion of Christians who choose to interpret it simplistically. As I've said many times if the Bible is just ink on a page then it's a dead writing that has no power except to control us. So to that extent I agree with you. Interpreted in a particular way the Bible can be misused and abused and used for very dangerous and evil ends. Which is why, by the way, it does no good for mainline churches to simply throw away the Bible. Because the Bible will still be there and I don't see the logic in leaving the playing field of biblical hermeneutics to the absolute literalists.

Christains generally don't go around looking to meter out biblical punishment. But they also generally don't take the bible that seriously. And that's a good thing.

Actually, those Christians who take the Bible seriously don't go around seeking to impose biblical punishments. Those who take it simplistically do.

We don't need to eradicate religion. We need to get every kid an education. Every kid needs a loving family and a place to call home. We need to make it so that kids don't hate so early or need to pretend that they are due something in a next life.

No argument at all.

We'll never eradicate it, but the things thate lift people up are also the things that see a decline in religiousity. No one needs to eradicate religion, and it's not right to think that's a good idea. The lifting up of people will see that religion ceases to be a dominant force in world politics. And once that happens, I don't care what you believe. As long as your imaginary friend doesn't gain control over the laws, I'm cool.

Generally speaking I agree with you. Christians should not attempt "to be a dominant force in world politics." That has never been a good idea - ever. Power corrupts, as we all know. As Jesus himself said, his kingdom is not of this world, so it always amuses/confuses/disturbs me that so many Christians want to create essentially Christian kingdoms or "Christian nations" which almost always become gross caricatures of what Christianity should be about - because those Christian nations will always be run by imperfect Christians. That's not to say that people of faith shouldn't run for office or be involved in politics, but it does mean that they shouldn't simply use politics to promote their own narrow agenda which ignores or dismisses the views of those who disagree with them. Because when we do that (when we attempt to establish a nation governed by "Christian law," for example, the result will be disaster every time, because we miss that the central feature of Christian morality is individual conscience rather than divine dictate.

Therein lies the problem with the torah, by the way. In its origins it was, indeed, the moral law of a nation - but that nation no longer exists in the same way. You don't have (if you ever did have) a monolithic Hebrew community, and the modern State of Israel is not biblical Israel, in spite of the insistence of certain fundamentalist Christians that it is and that any criticism of the State of Israel is anti-semitic. But regardless of your views of the State of Israel - and even if you do choose to equate the State of Israel with biblical Israel - the torah is not the moral "law" for anyone other than Israel. There is no "moral law" for Christians, for example. There is conscience. Which is essentially what Paul says. Those who try to codify Paul's teachings into law miss the point that Paul himself believes in individual conscience, and that what he writes is an expression of his individual conscience. I don't know that he ever thought his letters would be turned into a moral law that would form the basis of any society's legal system. What the New Testament gives us are essentially moral guidelines that point us in a direction, but we have to work out the implications for ourselves - depending on grace when we get it wrong.

 

[Seeler]

Steve, I was aboout to respond to Chanson and tell him that I find in this post that we are closer in our view than I realized.
Then I read your post. You express my thinking on his post much better than I coould myself. Thank you for your post.

 

[Luce NDs]

If one believes a' sol does not exist as psyche ... would such Sophetic deviation allow for conscience as part and parcel of no-existent spectres ... allowing delight in the end for those believing life is chaos? --- from some aulde ph' arđ (spelled with scripted-eth)! Word that can be the death of un-knowns and unknowing masques! It must be absorbed en Maas ... as Levantine ... that's mental light!

Could lead to Freud's commentary on dead-set wishes ... so life goes ... according to the myth of a'sol ... a complex autonomous thing dependant upon uncertainty principle ... or things like the God particle having not yet come to rest and those without are driven crazy by the absence ... so chit passes ... un-griped ... non-griping illusion-Eire? Close to the medicinal perspective of sphincter ... psychopathic and having a mind all its own ...

The wholly thing could be just a state of humus to entertain those beyond ... another step dear IUsus ... that heh that is not oute but inne ... once spoken of as In Kahn as kohl and collected ... even without Kahns the people were Jaerd ...

Self-inflection ... by the rule that people that think are dangerous ... to some orders!

 

[chansen]

Steve, I was aboout to respond to Chanson and tell him that I find in this post that we are closer in our view than I realized.
Then I read your post. You express my thinking on his post much better than I coould myself. Thank you for your post.

It's much more fun to reply when you think I want to outlaw religion and eat babies. Gives me licence to be more sarcastic.

 

[revsdd]

It's much more fun to reply when you think I want to outlaw religion and eat babies. Gives me licence to be more sarcastic.

I've never thought that you wanted to outlaw religion. Haven't been sure about your desire to eat babies though.

 

[Luce NDs]

One must fall in with Johnathan Swift in his satyr about fattening up wee urchin things to consume ... then many people don't get metaphors about rich and powerful men as compared to the humble, and lo' spirited folks spoken of in beatitudes ...

It is said beatitudes are a pseudonym for gifts, given, aD-onus, grace astis our responsibility to spread and even out wealth ... potentially only by Runes of the former stumped numbness ... a verily dark pool ... full of prickly spikes then they mature ...!

On has to question human sanity and where it is inturned !

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Can we summarize by saying that you think, in some sort of balance sheet in your own head, that "religion" has done more harm than good?

Yes, What good if any is always overshadowed by the fact that at any time it's adherents could kill if they believe it is right to or they believe that their god has told them to.

There's a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Where?

"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children. " Christopher Hitchens, God is not great.

ISIS, Al-Qaeda, 9/11, Human sacrifices, Spanish inquisition, Mary I burning Protestants, the holocaust, the crusades, honour killings, witch-hunts, stoning promiscuous women, thousands of wars and acts of terrorism, non-consensual sex with children and paedophilia, the rejection of science and reason etc etc etc.

My brother once said and felt he was right in saying it, was. "if it wasn't for my fear of god I could kill someone." I replied. "I have no fear of god and I couldn't kill or even contemplate killing anyone."

So from that any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God. Being religious is becoming like an excuse to be inhuman and selfish. As said given the righteous reason/s any religious person would commit atrocities.

But no formula, and I haven't seen a formula from you yet, so who knows?

A formula for what? I'm not after achieving anything. And as said in my last post you don't have to agree with me. So lets leave it at that.

 

[Waterfall]

Yes, What good if any is always overshadowed by the fact that at any time it's adherents could kill if they believe it is right to or they believe that their god has told them to. Where?

"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children. " Christopher Hitchens, God is not great.

ISIS, Al-Qaeda, 9/11, Human sacrifices, Spanish inquisition, Mary I burning Protestants, the holocaust, the crusades, honour killings, witch-hunts, stoning promiscuous women, thousands of wars and acts of terrorism, non-consensual sex with children and paedophilia, the rejection of science and reason etc etc etc.

My brother once said and felt he was right in saying it, was. "if it wasn't for my fear of god I could kill someone." I replied. "I have no fear of god and I couldn't kill or even contemplate killing anyone."

So from that any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God. Being religious is becoming like an excuse to be inhuman and selfish. As said given the righteous reason/s any religious person would commit atrocities.A formula for what? I'm not after achieving anything. And as said in my last post you don't have to agree with me. So lets leave it at that.

Looking at things through your own perspective....and Hitchens.....should we assume you are just as critical on the history of medicine? Is it also a total write off due to the many instances of quackery, botched experimental surgeries, cranial borings, nazis experimentations, hysterectomies performed on women without consent, to remove their "hysteria", etc...... Does this mean that all those indulging in all areas of medicine should be stopped due to the inhumanities performed in the past, present or possibly continued in the future? Or should we understand that some mistakes have been made along the way , but overall, it does not compare to the greater good and benefits that medicine has offered us?

 

[chansen]

Looking at things through your own perspective....and Hitchens.....should we assume you are just as critical on the history of medicine? Is it also a total write off due to the many instances of quackery, botched experimental surgeries, cranial borings, nazis experimentations, hysterectomies performed on women without consent, to remove their "hysteria", etc...... Does this mean that all those indulging in all areas of medicine should be stopped due to the inhumanities performed in the past, present or possibly continued in the future? Or should we understand that some mistakes have been made along the way , but overall, it does not compare to the greater good and benefits that medicine has offered us?

Let's look at the medicine comparison for a second. And you could extrapolate out to all science if you want.

With medicine and science, what we are committed to is the process. I can't stress this enough. Through learning and hypotyesizing and testing and refining, we are forever rewriting the textbooks. Yes there were failures along the way. Yes some things that medicine once thought were safe, were not. But we're committed to the process because we have no better choice. We work with the best information we have. And when we screw up, we fix it so that others don't suffer like those before them. And we write new textbooks so the new knowledge can spread.

The fatal flaw in Christianity (and most popular religions), compared to medicine, is that you are powerless to rewrite your stupid old textbook.

 

[Waterfall]

Let's look at the medicine comparison for a second. And you could extrapolate out to all science if you want.

With medicine and science, what we are committed to is the process. I can't stress this enough. Through learning and hypotyesizing and testing and refining, we are forever rewriting the textbooks. Yes there were failures along the way. Yes some things that medicine once thought were safe, were not. But we're committed to the process because we have no better choice. We work with the best information we have. And when we screw up, we fix it so that others don't suffer like those before them. And we write new textbooks so the new knowledge can spread.

The fatal flaw in Christianity (and most popular religions), compared to medicine, is that you are powerless to rewrite your stupid old textbook.

But most continue to evolve with their understanding. Sometimes it takes longer to reach the right understanding and other times not so much....the same for medicine or science. eg. Science still has it's nukes occupying the earth...an abomination to say the least.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Let's look at the medicine comparison for a second. And you could extrapolate out to all science if you want.

With medicine and science, what we are committed to is the process. I can't stress this enough. Through learning and hypotyesizing and testing and refining, we are forever rewriting the textbooks. Yes there were failures along the way. Yes some things that medicine once thought were safe, were not. But we're committed to the process because we have no better choice. We work with the best information we have. And when we screw up, we fix it so that others don't suffer like those before them. And we write new textbooks so the new knowledge can spread.

The fatal flaw in Christianity (and most popular religions), compared to medicine, is that you are powerless to rewrite your stupid old textbook.

Not true. Most religions have a "liberal wing", a progressive side, etc. At least most of these wings, or sides, inevitably turn into the mainstream. Anyone who thinks that Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism, looks exactly like it did when it was cooked up whatever number of millenia ago, is smoking something stronger than I do.

 

[chansen]

The. Book. Doesn't. Change.

You can dress it up however you like. You can do mental gymnastics until you convince yourself that the bad is actually good. But you can't change the book.

That's the killer. Literally.