• Religion : why does it exist ?
    792 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Fenderson;37524616]Religion has been used throughout history as a tool to control people, keeping them stupid and under the rule of facist liars. You've got your Greeks who were frightened to death to commit huberus against the state with fear that they may anger the gods, you've got Christianity telling people to accept their lot in life because its the life god gave them, you've got the Aztecs stabbin' the hearts out of virgins and telling them they saved the sun in order to create a society of fear and repression.[/QUOTE] that's not the whole of it though, religion has plenty of other reasons to exist [url]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/09/the-functions-of-faith.html[/url]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37524703]that's not the whole of it though, religion has plenty of other reasons to exist [url]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/09/the-functions-of-faith.html[/url][/QUOTE] That's why institutionalized religion exists, otherwise people wouldn't really give a fuck about eachother's beliefs. When you go to war, you've got to assure your population that god is on your side. Anyone who disagrees with your political decision is now a blasphemous heretic. Religion is a terrific tool to keep people in the norm. As a tool to shape your morality, the morals of religion are almost always in accordance with what a ruler would want. "Don't kill eachother, don't create unrest, don't steal from fair productive legitimate businesses, and don't generally fuck shit up for my rule. Slavery.. Slavery is okay because I need it for the crops. Also, if you see any heretics, tie them to a log and throw them over a fire." and so slavery is written in the bible as being okay and people who disagree with god (who supposedly exercises his will using the king) will be burned As for non-institutionalized religion, human brains grew to the point where they started questioning the world around them, they didn't know so they made some shit up.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;37524975]As a tool to shape your morality, the morals of religion are almost always in accordance with what a ruler would want. "Don't kill eachother, don't create unrest, don't steal from fair productive legitimate businesses, and don't generally fuck shit up for my rule. Slavery.. Slavery is okay because I need it for the crops. Also, if you see any heretics, tie them to a log and throw them over a fire."[/QUOTE] what about the stuff about rich people not getting into heaven, and where jesus fucked the merchant's shit up in the temple I'm not saying that religion isn't used as a tool of propaganda by the state, just that it wasn't necessarily planned that way from the start. christianity's militarism is heavily influenced by emperor constantine making it the official state religion of the roman empire, but this was only because it was a popular religion already. you can take almost any ideology and retcon it into a way to coerce people to do shit (eg marxism), that's why I use such a broad definition of "cult". there will almost always be traces of the original intention of the idea though, which is why religious leaders have to get by with a great deal of hypocrisy and doublethink.
in response to title: because a few smart people wove a beautiful bunch of lies to control stupid people, and now through generation after generation of inter-religious breeding, people still believe these ridiculous claims of magic and miracles despite modern science having proven them wrong eons ago. Yet, sadly, people are too stubborn and stupid to let them go, their pride is too much to handle. It will exist as long as stupid people exist. "God tends to his flock, shepherd blah blah", religious people are nothing but sheep. Go read a book, learn about gravity or why the moon shines
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37524346]No I mean why did they have to separate themselves in the first place? What rational reason could one have for becoming a Christian? The Romans just left people alone if they weren't upstarts trying to start a political uprising; they mostly treated people okay by the standards of the time.[/QUOTE] I declare my ignorance on this one. It was probably the effect of being under the rule of the Roman Empire. You must also consider that, as you said, there were different messianic Judaism movements at that time, so there must have been a really good reason for the emergence of those. [QUOTE]Eventually Christianity became the mainstream religion but conditions afterwards weren't markedly improved from before, and you'd have a hard time showing that the improvements that did occur were down to Christianity and not just ordinary technological advancement that would have proceeded either way.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is that our current way of thinking about morals is greatly influenced by Christianity, even if we don't like it. I'm not saying it is [I]improved[/I] by it, what I'm saying is that, in out time and context, even those who criticize Christianity for being 'immoral', are doing so by looking at it using typical Christian values. For example, there are lots of people who criticize Christianity for being an oppressive religion, but we would not be able to think about personal freedom, moral imperatives, etc. in the way we do if Christianity hadn't been there to influence the intellectuals when they were making the moral foundations of Modern thought. So that criticism is really stupid. This can be easily seen by looking at the historical moral development of nations who didn't adopt the Christian moral paradigm. For example, the Asian nations didn't have a developed concept of personal freedom, nor of moral imperatives that are separated form your countries' law. If, for example, Chinese values/philosophy had been embraced by Modern thinkers at that time, we would be thinking about different values; our moral conception of the world would be [I]different[/I]. Yet many people fail to see how a christian moral conception of the world is enrooted in them, and think they 'got rid' of Christianity already by just denying the factual claims. [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37524616]Religion has been used throughout history as a tool to control people, keeping them stupid and under the rule of [B]facist liars.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=zydos;37524616]in response to title: because a few smart people wove a beautiful bunch of lies to control stupid people, and now through generation after generation of inter-religious breeding, people still believe these ridiculous claims of magic and miracles despite [B]modern science having proven them [ONLY THEIR FACTUAL CLAIMS] wrong eons ago.[/B] Yet, sadly, people are too stubborn and stupid to let them go, their pride is too much to handle. It will exist as long as stupid people exist. "God tends to his flock, shepherd blah blah", religious people are nothing but sheep. Go read a book, learn about gravity or why the moon shines[/QUOTE] Really, see? More of what I was talking about. I'm really surprised of how people are short sighted at seen religion's effects on society.
[QUOTE=matsta;37531759]Really, see? More of what I was talking about. I'm really surprised of how people are short sighted at seen religion's effects on society.[/QUOTE] They used to think stars were holes in the sky that heaven was shining through Nope [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] The only effects it's had on society were anti-progressive ones. Sure it helps a great number of people with their journey through life, 'guidance', but all it does for the human race is "shut up, sit down. God Jesus Mother Mary"
[QUOTE=oytal;37406201]I think its kinda funny that its almot only none-belivers in this discussion. So its really nothing to discuss if you all agree. Though myself im a christian. And anyways if religion exists, good for the religius that they had right. If not, what harm can it have done? Most religions tells people to be nice to eachother. Can't see anything negative with that...[/QUOTE] Off-topic but that's not the case, Some of the most intolerant people come from religion in my opinion.
Religion is the heart of all prejudice. It's very crystal clear to me that all religious folk want to divide society.
I describe myself as Christian but not religious. Sounds absurd but let me explain. Christianity, prior to the roman adoption and during the life of Christ has a really beautiful message in general. The thing I can't stand is how people institutionalized it. I don't go to church nor use objects of cult because that is exactly against what Christ wanted. The church does in fact invest lots of money in charity, however I feel there is unnecessary bullshit there that has nothing to do with Christianity. It's just civilizational and cultural traits adopted from other religions, cultures and civilizations. I think is stupid how some people turned it into a religion of salvation and of obsession about what's in the bible and not. Who fucking cares anyway, that is not the point. I believe church shouldn't be institutionalized. According to Jesus the church consists into us all. And that's pretty much it.
[QUOTE=matsta;37531759]What I'm saying is that our current way of thinking about morals is greatly influenced by Christianity, even if we don't like it. I'm not saying it is [I]improved[/I] by it, what I'm saying is that, in out time and context, even those who criticize Christianity for being 'immoral', are doing so by looking at it using typical Christian values. For example, there are lots of people who criticize Christianity for being an oppressive religion, but we would not be able to think about personal freedom, moral imperatives, etc. in the way we do if Christianity hadn't been there to influence the intellectuals when they were making the moral foundations of Modern thought. So that criticism is really stupid. This can be easily seen by looking at the historical moral development of nations who didn't adopt the Christian moral paradigm. For example, the Asian nations didn't have a developed concept of personal freedom, nor of moral imperatives that are separated form your countries' law. If, for example, Chinese values/philosophy had been embraced by Modern thinkers at that time, we would be thinking about different values; our moral conception of the world would be [I]different[/I]. Yet many people fail to see how a christian moral conception of the world is enrooted in them, and think they 'got rid' of Christianity already by just denying the factual claims.[/quote] No, the modern paradigm of morality is based entirely on the Englightenment, which was a secular movement through-and-through. The Enlightenment thinkers, almost without exception, rejected Christianity and organized religion in general. The principles were derived through Reason and honest argumentation rather than Faith and deference to scripture. Two of the biggest shakeups to the establishment were the US Constitution and the French Revolution, both explicitly secular. While the French Revolution did degrade into pogroms and military aggrandizement, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code]Napoleonic Code[/url] influenced a great many countries and survives to this day. I'm not saying that the Enlightenment was [I]entirely[/I] immune to Christianity - Newton was a notable exception, just that its contributions were negligible and mostly served to retard the process rather than help it. [editline]4th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=AK'z;37534199]Religion is the heart of all prejudice.[/QUOTE] This is false though.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;37535802]I describe myself as Christian but not religious. Sounds absurd but let me explain. Christianity, prior to the roman adoption and during the life of Christ has a really beautiful message in general. The thing I can't stand is how people institutionalized it. I don't go to church nor use objects of cult because that is exactly against what Christ wanted. The church does in fact invest lots of money in charity, however I feel there is unnecessary bullshit there that has nothing to do with Christianity. It's just civilizational and cultural traits adopted from other religions, cultures and civilizations. I think is stupid how some people turned it into a religion of salvation and of obsession about what's in the bible and not. Who fucking cares anyway, that is not the point. I believe church shouldn't be institutionalized. According to Jesus the church consists into us all. And that's pretty much it.[/QUOTE] Even though there is no concrete evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible? A lot of people say they believe in Jesus, but not necessarily Christianity, but that's just as flawed in how you determined that.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37535826] This is false though.[/QUOTE] I know, but there's still prejudice.
[QUOTE=zydos;37532418]They used to think stars were holes in the sky that heaven was shining through Nope [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] [B]The only effects it's had on society were anti-progressive ones.[/B] Sure it helps a great number of people with their journey through life, 'guidance', but all it does for the human race is "shut up, sit down. God Jesus Mother Mary"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Twelve Tables of Roman Law, established early in the formation of the Roman Republic, stated in the fourth table that deformed children must be put to death. In addition, patriarchs in Roman society were given the right to "discard" infants at their discretion. This was often done by drowning undesired newborns in the Tiber River. The practice of open infanticide in the Roman Empire did not subside until its Christianization.[/QUOTE] Uh huh... [QUOTE][B]This can be easily seen by looking at the historical moral development of nations who didn't adopt the Christian moral paradigm.[/B] For example, the Asian nations didn't have a developed concept of personal freedom, nor of moral imperatives that are separated form your countries' law. If, for example, Chinese values/philosophy had been embraced by Modern thinkers at that time, we would be thinking about different values; our moral conception of the world would be different. Yet many people fail to see how a christian moral conception of the world is enrooted in them, and think they 'got rid' of Christianity already by just denying the factual claims.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37532418]No, the modern paradigm of morality is based entirely on the Englightenment, which was a secular movement through-and-through. The Enlightenment thinkers, almost without exception, rejected Christianity and organized religion in general. The principles were derived through Reason and honest argumentation rather than Faith and deference to scripture. Two of the biggest shakeups to the establishment were the US Constitution and the French Revolution, both explicitly secular. While the French Revolution did degrade into pogroms and military aggrandizement, the Napoleonic Code influenced a great many countries and survives to this day. I'm not saying that the Enlightenment was entirely immune to Christianity - Newton was a notable exception, [B]just that its contributions were negligible and mostly served to retard the process rather than help it.[/B][/QUOTE] I love how you completely ignore that part of my post. The rejection of 'factual truths' of the bible doesn't mean you have completely rejected Christianity. [I]All that 'reason and honest argumentation' through which Modern moral thought was established takes for granted lots of moral conceptions of the world. There is where the Christian moral thinking expresses itself.[/I]
[QUOTE=matsta;37538366]I love how you completely ignore that part of my post. The rejection of 'factual truths' of the bible doesn't mean you have completely rejected Christianity. [I]All that 'reason and honest argumentation' through which Modern moral thought was established takes for granted lots of moral conceptions of the world. There is where the Christian moral thinking expresses itself.[/I][/QUOTE] they didn't just reject factual truths, they rejected the moral ideology as well how hard is this to understand
i just saw this on the FacePunch homepage, and all i gotta say is this: Religion exists to explain the things that couldn't be explained before, such as the sun, the moon, seasons, life and death, etc. It eventually started to become something people would worship and practice so they could live safely. As time passed, more religions popped up, and only a few lasted until today, but have greatly changed due to misinterpretations, lost translations, and changes to suit the translator's liking.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37540358]they didn't just reject factual truths, they rejected the moral ideology as well how hard is this to understand[/QUOTE] Ok. Tell me about one of the predominant moral systems of Modern Age that isn't related in any way to Christian moral conceptions. [QUOTE=Scoot@U;37540358]i just saw this on the FacePunch homepage, and all i gotta say is this: Religion exists to explain the things that couldn't be explained before, such as the sun, the moon, seasons, life and death, etc. It eventually started to become something people would worship and practice so they could live safely. As time passed, more religions popped up, and only a few lasted until today, but have greatly changed due to misinterpretations, lost translations, and changes to suit the translator's liking.[/QUOTE] It wasn't just for 'explaining stuff'. People here are prone to believing that religions are [I]either[/I] for explaining stuff about the physical world [I]or[/I] to give life a meaning. What doesn't even cross their mind is that those things weren't separate topics in the ancient world: the 'factual' problems weren't different from the moral ones. What can be called 'religion' now was an attempt to answer question pertaining to man's problems in general. Although it wasn't a rational attempt, the rational attempt to answer those questions would come thousands of years later as philosophy.
[QUOTE=matsta;37544378]Ok. Tell me about one of the predominant moral systems of Modern Age that isn't related in any way to Christian moral conceptions.[/quote] We value human life just for the sake of it, rather than because it is a creation of God. The very idea that we can distinguish right from wrong without a God to help us is anathema to Christianity. Sure, we might end up agreeing with some parts of the Bible, but then for the Bible to be wrong about everything would be truly extraordinary. Likewise, I probably agree with some of the things found in the Koran, but I wouldn't say that the Koran significantly influenced me.
[QUOTE=matsta;37544378]Ok. Tell me about one of the predominant moral systems of Modern Age that isn't related in any way to Christian moral conceptions. [/QUOTE] This question is the wrong way round. The question should be; tell me one christian moral concept that isnt in any way related to basic humanity moral concepts/being a good person. The empathy emotion was not invented by religions.
[QUOTE=Schnuggle;37549575]This question is the wrong way round. The question should be; tell me one christian moral concept that isnt in any way related to basic humanity moral concepts/being a good person. The empathy emotion was not invented by religions.[/QUOTE] this too
[QUOTE=zydos;37527171]in response to title: because a few smart people wove a beautiful bunch of lies to control stupid people, and now through generation after generation of inter-religious breeding, people still believe these ridiculous claims of magic and miracles despite modern science having proven them wrong eons ago. Yet, sadly, people are too stubborn and stupid to let them go, their pride is too much to handle. It will exist as long as stupid people exist. "God tends to his flock, shepherd blah blah", religious people are nothing but sheep. Go read a book, learn about gravity or why the moon shines[/QUOTE] Just because someone is religious doesn't make them stupid As a matter of fact I'm regarding you pretty badly right now for being so close-minded and assertive on the topic of human intelligence being linked to religion. Throughout history there have been plenty of influential religious people who have made great advances in science, for example Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel, and there continues to be many scientists that do have faith to this day. Just because a holy book that was written by human hands and translated >9000 times (by humans) says something that could be ridiculous doesn't mean you have to take it seriously. For all we know, a lot of these things could be metaphors. You Anti-Theists think you're so smart and that you're so much better and intelligent than anyone who has faith in something, and unable to prove that you are you simply assert that everyone who even has hints of belief is a dumb sheep being led to a slaughterhouse. Your statement is no better than the statements of the clergy members who casually dismissed Galileo's discoveries as blasphemy, as now you casually dismiss religious people everywhere as idiots
It shouldnt even exisit [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37565349]Just because someone is religious doesn't make them stupid As a matter of fact I'm regarding you pretty badly right now for being so close-minded and assertive on the topic of human intelligence being linked to religion. Throughout history there have been plenty of influential religious people who have made great advances in science, for example Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel, and there continues to be many scientists that do have faith to this day. Just because a holy book that was written by human hands and translated >9000 times (by humans) says something that could be ridiculous doesn't mean you have to take it seriously. For all we know, a lot of these things could be metaphors. You Anti-Theists think you're so smart and that you're so much better and intelligent than anyone who has faith in something, and unable to prove that you are you simply assert that everyone who even has hints of belief is a dumb sheep being led to a slaughterhouse. Your statement is no better than the statements of the clergy members who casually dismissed Galileo's discoveries as blasphemy, as now you casually dismiss religious people everywhere as idiots[/QUOTE] Agreed. By the way, a lot of the context [i]is[/i] metaphors. The creation stories, for example, are just one huge metaphor and it's not to be taken literally at all or in any way. I will break it down for you and explain it all if you want, but I don't have the time right now. Not even the most fundamental Catholics or Christians are suppose to take the creation stories literally, but many do. I'm sure the Pope would even agree with that. It just becomes a big problem when people don't even know their own damn religion. That's not necessarily religion deranging them (in some cases yes), it's just them being fairly stupid and lacking common/literary sense.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37581148]Agreed. By the way, a lot of the context [i]is[/i] metaphors. The creation stories, for example, are just one huge metaphor and it's not to be taken literally at all or in any way. I will break it down for you and explain it all if you want, but I don't have the time right now. Not even the most fundamental Catholics or Christians are suppose to take the creation stories literally, but many do. I'm sure the Pope would even agree with that. It just becomes a big problem when people don't even know their own damn religion. That's not necessarily religion deranging them (in some cases yes), it's just them being fairly stupid and lacking common/literary sense.[/QUOTE] What information do you base this off of? The bible tends to explicitly say when it is speaking in metaphor and when it is not, the creation story is an example where it does not mention anything about the story being a metaphor. Also the pope isn't the only reliable source of Christian teaching.
[QUOTE=MrYoshi411;37580958]It shouldnt even exisit[/QUOTE] What an insightful addition to the debate!
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;37581404]What information do you base this off of? The bible tends to explicitly say when it is speaking in metaphor and when it is not, the creation story is an example where it does not mention anything about the story being a metaphor. Also the pope isn't the only reliable source of Christian teaching.[/QUOTE] I didn't say he was the only source of Christian teaching. Did I say that? There's more. There's many more out there that agree with what I said, the problem is not enough people do. I also spent four (pretty shitty) years in a Catholic school and my sophomore year is when the teacher explained to us how and why the creation stories are metaphors. It was pretty cool though because even she herself was pretty upset with the way Christianity was organized and ran. She wasn't shoving God in our face all of the time or anything, I give her that. I do. When the Bible explicitly states that it is speaking in metaphors is when Jesus says so himself. Jesus isn't around in the OT so we don't know for sure what is metaphors and what's not. But by reading and critically analyzing the text we can figure it out. In a couple hours I'll have time to explain the whole thing with the creation stories.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37581638]I didn't say he was the only source of Christian teaching. Did I say that? There's more. There's many more out there that agree with what I said, the problem is not enough people do. I also spent four (pretty shitty) years in a Catholic school and my sophomore year is when the teacher explained to us how and why the creation stories are metaphors. It was pretty cool though because even she herself was pretty upset with the way Christianity was organized and ran. She wasn't shoving God in our face all of the time or anything, I give her that. I do.[/QUOTE] I was simply trying to say that there are plenty perfectly intelligent people that support the literal scripture. I agree that there is much to be upset about the handling of Christianity in the majority of churches, what your teacher taught would be on of them though. [QUOTE=zacht_180;37581638]When the Bible explicitly states that it is speaking in metaphors is when Jesus says so himself. Jesus isn't around in the OT so we don't know for sure what is metaphors and what's not. But by reading and critically analyzing the text we can figure it out. In a couple hours I'll have time to explain the whole thing with the creation stories.[/QUOTE] So why shouldn't the things things explicitly metaphorical be the only things taken as such? I'll wait and see hat you have to say though.
Wait what? What the hell are you saying? Sorry it's kind of late and I've had a rough night so I might not be understanding what you're saying. I'm not trying to say that only what's explicitly stated as metaphorical should be viewed as metaphorical, that's kind of the opposite of what I'm saying actually. There's cases in the Bible where things are written metaphorically, but it wasn't explicitly stated in the text that, "This is a metaphor." Literary analysis is very important. Anyways, if you've read Genesis you'd know that there are actually two parts to the creation story. To be honest I don't even need to go into detail, because I don't have to. I don't need to. It's not necessary. Part 1: This is basically just the very beginning. This is when God created the universe in six days, rested on the seventh, I'm sure you've all heard of it. God spoke by command, "Let there be...", and then again you already know that. You know all of this, so let's hope I don't have too explain much. God spoke powerfully and used his divine powers to create the universe and then rest on the seventh day. That's the first part of the creation story. Part 2: This is when God created man, Adam, and then created Eve because man needed a partner. You know this too, right? Anyways God here spoke personally to the two, told them not to eat the apple, they did, and God expelled them from the Garden of Eden. Of course the serpent devil was also a factor here. _________________________________________ Now here's where I'm getting at. This is so simple you wouldn't believe it. We're not suppose to read this and think, "Oh God created the universe in seven days," or, "Oh we must have came from Adam and Even." We're not suppose to think that, God didn't create the universe in seven days and not one goddamn fundamental Catholic for chrissake is even suppose to believe it. But the thing is they do and it gets annoying as hell. The creations stories are two big ass metaphors for how we see this God. In the first creation story, God is a majestic, mysterious, powerful, all-knowing divine being who forces the creation of the universe just with commands from his thunderous voice. In the second story, God is not that. God is personal, quiet, and intimate with humans. The two creation stories were written as simple metaphors, telling us that God is in fact divine and powerful. We don't know him, he's mysterious. He's that. But he's also intimate and personal. He supposedly comes to us personally and is important when it comes to our relationship with him and with other human beings. The two stories are simply metaphors that were written to try to help us better understand God. Now I'm not even Catholic - or Christian for the matter. It's not what I believe, it's not what I'm saying you have to believe or anyone else has to believe. It's really not. I'm not saying these theological views are downright fact. But taken the two stories, and when literally analyzed, it's true that they're metaphors and they were written and intended to be metaphors. We're not suppose to believe the text and actually think this shit happened. Like I said, Catholics aren't even suppose to. The thing is some do.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;37584561]Wait what? What the hell are you saying? Sorry it's kind of late and I've had a rough night so I might not be understanding what you're saying. I'm not trying to say that only what's explicitly stated as metaphorical should be viewed as metaphorical, that's kind of the opposite of what I'm saying actually. There's cases in the Bible where things are written metaphorically, but it wasn't explicitly stated in the text that, "This is a metaphor." Literary analysis is very important. Anyways, if you've read Genesis you'd know that there are actually two parts to the creation story. To be honest I don't even need to go into detail, because I don't have to. I don't need to. It's not necessary. Part 1: This is basically just the very beginning. This is when God created the universe in six days, rested on the seventh, I'm sure you've all heard of it. God spoke by command, "Let there be...", and then again you already know that. You know all of this, so let's hope I don't have too explain much. God spoke powerfully and used his divine powers to create the universe and then rest on the seventh day. That's the first part of the creation story. Part 2: This is when God created man, Adam, and then created Eve because man needed a partner. You know this too, right? Anyways God here spoke personally to the two, told them not to eat the apple, they did, and God expelled them from the Garden of Eden. Of course the serpent devil was also a factor here. _________________________________________ Now here's where I'm getting at. This is so simple you wouldn't believe it. We're not suppose to read this and think, "Oh God created the universe in seven days," or, "Oh we must have came from Adam and Even." We're not suppose to think that, God didn't create the universe in seven days and not one goddamn fundamental Catholic for chrissake is even suppose to believe it. But the thing is they do and it gets annoying as hell. The creations stories are two big ass metaphors for how we see this God. In the first creation story, God is a majestic, mysterious, powerful, all-knowing divine being who forces the creation of the universe just with commands from his thunderous voice. In the second story, God is not that. God is personal, quiet, and intimate with humans. The two creation stories were written as simple metaphors, telling us that God is in fact divine and powerful. We don't know him, he's mysterious. He's that. But he's also intimate and personal. He supposedly comes to us personally and is important when it comes to our relationship with him and with other human beings. The two stories are simply metaphors that were written to try to help us better understand God. Now I'm not even Catholic - or Christian for the matter. It's not what I believe, it's not what I'm saying you have to believe or anyone else has to believe. It's really not. I'm not saying these theological views are downright fact. But taken the two stories, and when literally analyzed, it's true that they're metaphors and they were written and intended to be metaphors. We're not suppose to believe the text and actually think this shit happened. Like I said, Catholics aren't even suppose to. The thing is some do.[/QUOTE] The thing is you aren't drawing this conclusion from anywhere else than your personal doubt, you're simply looking at the text and saying that nobody could expect us to believe that so it must be metaphor. The reason why I'm making such a point out of this due to the fact that you're saying it as if it's known fact that these parts of the bible were meant to be taken as metaphor when that idea is mostly just based on personal bias. If all Christians thought like that they would end cannibalizing their own religion inside out as they take everything in the bible that's hard to believe and say it's metaphor. With this thinking you could say that Christ's rising form the dead is meant to be taken as a metaphor which just undermines everything about Christianity. My point is that this isn't a functional way of believing in the religion as it simply allows you to control almost every aspect of it based on personal interpretation. In the new testament Christ cites the old testament many times, especially the parts that are harder to believe, and uses them as historical facts. That's the central figure God himself stating it, so pretty much Christians who believe such parts of the bible to be metaphorical are in fact going against the very central part of their religion.
Obviously this isn't stuff I thought up after I just happened to read the Bible or anything. There's many others who think like this, just not enough. Like I said, even some Christian schools teach it like this. It's more than just my personal doubt. I'm also not saying that all of the Bible was intended to be a metaphor, just a lot more than what most people think. Sometimes it just comes down to simply reading the text, and finding out what it means. So Jesus makes a reference to a few metaphors in the Old Testament and all of the sudden Christianity has been chewed up and spat out? You don't want to believe that theologically the universe was created in seven days, so then all of the sudden the idea of Christianity becomes ruined?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37565349]Just because someone is religious doesn't make them stupid[/QUOTE] Never said it did, but it does make them ignorant towards a lot of issues. [QUOTE=BFG9000;37565349]As a matter of fact I'm regarding you pretty badly right now for being so close-minded and assertive on the topic of human intelligence being linked to religion. Throughout history there have been plenty of influential religious people who have made great advances in science, for example Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel, and there continues to be many scientists that do have faith to this day.[/QUOTE] Yes but they didn't sit in a chair and say "well, I guess this is how the world works, god said so" like a lot of bible thumpers do. They don't go out and figure out the world on their own, but Newton and Mendel did because they were more than sheep, they were minds. Minds that knew there was more out there than a book [QUOTE=BFG9000;37565349]Just because a holy book that was written by human hands and translated >9000 times (by humans) says something that could be ridiculous doesn't mean you have to take it seriously. For all we know, a lot of these things could be metaphors.[/QUOTE] This is my point about why people shouldn't take the bible so seriously. It's like that game broken telephone. Thousands of years later, a story of "oh, Jesus sailed out to us in a storm" turned into "oh, Jesus sailed out to us so fast" to "oh, Jesus practically sprinted in his boat towards us" to "oh, Jesus ran//walked across the water to save us". "Jimmy likes pie" turns into "Shimmy a dyke's eye" after 30 people pass it on. Sure, the lessons of the bible are great for people, they help us in ways that sometimes people just can't help themselves, but they're just that, lessons and stories from a 2000 year old book, overtranslated, and embellished. [QUOTE=BFG9000;37565349]Your statement is no better than the statements of the clergy members who casually dismissed Galileo's discoveries as blasphemy, as now you casually dismiss religious people everywhere as idiots[/QUOTE] I bet Galileo thought the church was full of fools too. Did you know Bill Nye was booed off stage and kicked out of a science convention in Texas for telling them that the moon in fact does NOT emit light, but reflect the suns light? When the bible clearly states god put TWO LIGHTS in the sky, not one and one mirror? Yeah, Texas couldn't handle a simple truth. The sheer ignorance of the bible belt refuted a scientific fact. Go religion go
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.