The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda Options

[NoSex]

I imagine if we were to be an entirely irreligious people, we might care alot more for our time here on earth. The rarity of life is increased, and with it its value. Instead of worrying for some fairy tale ending in the sky, we start to look to our neighbors.

Also, religion is a very dangerous thing to free thought. If we are to accept certain religious dogmas, certain other things of reality must not be true. A cancer ward becomes a token of love when accepting the omnibenevolent God. When grandama got hit by a car, it was for some profound spirituality. Men are useless without spiritual guidance, and even then they are pretty worthless.

Naturally, after living on this planet for any extended period of time while holding religious beliefs, a cognitive dissonance will tend closer and closer to psychosis.

I have cancer, but God still loves me, and I'm gonna go off to a better place now. Much unlike my neighbors who don't have cancer, but believe in false Gods. What sad losers.

[*kryogenix*]

well, that depends if you believe in the existence of "hell". and without religeon, different interpretations would not be an issue. and i dont think this debate will go anywhere, because we both have different believes and neither of us are going to convince eachother their belief is wrong. have a beautiful day

peace

We'll find out in about 80-90 years

  I imagine if we were to be an entirely irreligious people, we might care alot more for our time here on earth. The rarity of life is increased, and with it its value. Instead of worrying for some fairy tale ending in the sky, we start to look to our neighbors.

If anything, life is precious BECAUSE of religion. We have to learn to make our time on earth count, because it determines what happens after we die.

Also, religion is a very dangerous thing to free thought. If we are to accept certain religious dogmas, certain other things of reality must not be true. A cancer ward becomes a token of love when accepting the omnibenevolent God. When grandama got hit by a car, it was for some profound spirituality. Men are useless without spiritual guidance, and even then they are pretty worthless.

Would history class be dangerous to free thought as well? In history classes, we are taught that one thing happened, and if we challenge that thing by saying it didn't happen in an essay, we are punished.

Naturally, after living on this planet for any extended period of time while holding religious beliefs, a cognitive dissonance will tend closer and closer to psychosis.

What are suggesting here?

I have cancer, but God still loves me, and I'm gonna go off to a better place now. Much unlike my neighbors who don't have cancer, but believe in false Gods. What sad losers.

I've lost a few important people in my life to cancer. They loved God to the end, and thanked him that they were on earth for so long. They weren't bitter about the people who didn't believe in God.

One must have spirtual health as well as physical health.

[NoSex]

We'll find out in about 80-90 years

Uhhhmmm? Assuming that the afterlife actually exists. Which seems, to me, laughable.

If anything, life is precious  BECAUSE of religion. We have to learn to make our time on earth count, because it determines what happens after we die.

Do over.

Depends on what religious belief you follow. Some, maybe. Alot others, not at all. Most Christian denominations don't operate on a justice philosophy. Works are ignored and blind faith is praised. Those who believe are granted everlasting life in heaven, those who can't bring themselves to believe in such absurd stories burn forever in hell. God is obviously a pitty, egotistical, and ultimately a totalitarian child.

The Christian God is very much an anthropomorphic God.

Would history class be dangerous to free thought as well? In history classes, we are taught that one thing happened, and if we challenge that thing by saying it didn't happen in an essay, we are punished.

It is definately a possibility. I am not so much adamantly against religiosity as I am against dogmatic belief in-general. If an open dialogue does not exist within the history class, then there is probably something wrong.

If someone believes that something trully did not happen, I suggest they write that paper. However, you won't get very far saying that you read it somewhere, feel, and prayed on it.

Extraordinary claims often tend to meet alot of skepticism and opposition. This is natural. The standard of evidence demands it. However, religious claims tend to get away from such scrutiny. "Why," questions in these situations become taboo. An open dialogue dies and dogmatic beliefs breeds.

What are suggesting here?

I'm suggesting that the highly religious disassociate from reality in the direct intent to hold on to their faith. If contrary evidence is presented, psychological noise takes precedence. This effect is amplified by the sheer unbelievability associated with spirituality, as well as its supernatural nature.

Since most spiritual claims are nonfalsifiable, challenging that belief becomes more difficult. Also, making excuses suddenly become easier.

Note: "God works in mysterious ways!"

I've lost a few important people in my life to cancer. They loved God to the end, and thanked him that they were on earth for so long. They weren't bitter about the people who didn't believe in God.

Why were they so happy to be on earth if there was an afterlife there the entire time? Were they not just thrown into a meaningless and spectaculary cruel waiting-room?

See above.

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."
-- Bertrand Russell

One must have spirtual health as well as physical health.

Given that spirituality exists. Sure.

I would love to just debate straight with you sometime on the existence of a God. I believe it could be very enjoyable. It's up to you. Let me know. Thanks.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Let's look at religion geographically.



Now, why would one religion be concentrated in one spot and another be in another spot and another be in another spot...etc. etc.? Why is Taoism mostly just in China? Why is Bhuddism so prevalent just in Mongolia and Southern Asian countries and not the Western world? Why is Islam so popular in Northern Africa and the Middle East? Why is Christianity the most widespread religion in the Western world, and not the Eastern?

Duh! Religion is passed down through teachings. If one couple associates themselves with Christianity, their children most likely will as well since that's what they were taught to do, with no prior knowledge of anything otherwise. Why would you believe otherwise when you were only taught one thing? Just as the parents in China have obviously taught their children the ways of Taoism, and the parents in Northern Africa have taught their children about Islam. It's all just stories passed down through many families over a large period of time, presumed to be true by those regions of the world. How many people in America and Western Europe accept the teachings of Shintoism as true? Barely any, but in Japan, it's all the rage. There's plenty of Shintoists there. You are of a certain religion because someone told you to be before prior knowledge of other things, not because you read up on it when you were old enough to comprehend it and actually accepted it as truth in a logical sense. No one actually stops to think about it.

It's the same way with certain other social "abnormalties". It's abnormal to walk around without clothes on. Why? Because each child, as they're growing up, is taught not to do so. A baby or a toddler can shed their clothes as they please. It's "OK" for them to be naked. But as soon as they get to a certain age, they have to keep their clothes on because it's "bad" to be naked. That's what was taught. It didn't used to be that way, but because everyone was told that clothes are good and naked is bad, it is accepted as natural truth.

Think about it. No one ever thinks anymore, and I assure you, if you really think about the origins of your religious and spiritual thoughts, you'll be confused.

[*kryogenix*]

Depends on what religious belief you follow. Some, maybe. Alot others, not at all. Most Christian denominations don't operate on a justice philosophy. Works are ignored and blind faith is praised. Those who believe are granted everlasting life in heaven, those who can't bring themselves to believe in such absurd stories burn forever in hell. God is obviously a pitty, egotistical, and ultimately a totalitarian child.

The Christian God is very much an anthropomorphic God.

What support do you have for this? Jesus grew up questioning the rabbis. How do you think Christianity became what it is today? People asked questions, and God asnwered.

I think you're comparing God to humans when you should be comparing humans to God. Man was made in God's image, therefore man is like God, but he is not God.

It is definately a possibility. I am not so much adamantly against religiosity as I am against dogmatic belief in-general. If an open dialogue does not exist within the history class, then there is probably something wrong.

Then what problems do you have with Christian dogma?

Extraordinary claims often tend to meet alot of skepticism and opposition. This is natural. The standard of evidence demands it. However, religious claims tend to get away from such scrutiny. "Why," questions in these situations become taboo. An open dialogue dies and dogmatic beliefs breeds.
I'm suggesting that the highly religious disassociate from reality in the direct intent to hold on to their faith. If contrary evidence is presented, psychological noise takes precedence. This effect is amplified by the sheer unbelievability associated with spirituality, as well as its supernatural nature.

Since most spiritual claims are nonfalsifiable, challenging that belief becomes more difficult. Also, making excuses suddenly become easier.

I'm unsure of what you're talking about here. Growing up, we've questined religion many times, but we've always gotten a good answer. The questions we asked only served to strengthened our belief.

I don't see the motive for the lies you're accusing Christianity of. If you mean to suggest that Christianity is some sort racket, I think you're very wrong. Catholicism does not require a set amount of money to be paid from your income. The clergy live a modest life so it's not like they're spending the money on a trip to Vegas.

Why were they so happy to be on earth if there was an afterlife there the entire time? Were they not just thrown into a meaningless and spectaculary cruel waiting-room?

We're here because of Adam and Eve.

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."
-- Bertrand Russell

The belief that there is no supernatural being is a myth. I've had many atheists get angry at me when they've argued with me and I did not fold. The quote applies to both the religious and non-religious.

Given that spirituality exists. Sure.

Why it does.

I would love to just debate straight with you sometime on the existence of a God. I believe it could be very enjoyable. It's up to you. Let me know. Thanks.

[*kryogenix*]

Now, why would one religion be concentrated in one spot and another be in another spot and another be in another spot...etc. etc.? Why is Taoism mostly just in China? Why is Bhuddism so prevalent just in Mongolia and Southern Asian countries and not the Western world? Why is Islam so popular in Northern Africa and the Middle East? Why is Christianity the most widespread religion in the Western world, and not the Eastern?

Because of the Muslim policy of Sharia.

Duh! Religion is passed down through teachings. If one couple associates themselves with Christianity, their children most likely will as well since that's what they were taught to do, with no prior knowledge of anything otherwise. Why would you believe otherwise when you were only taught one thing? Just as the parents in China have obviously taught their children the ways of Taoism, and the parents in Northern Africa have taught their children about Islam. It's all just stories passed down through many families over a large period of time, presumed to be true by those regions of the world. How many people in America and Western Europe accept the teachings of Shintoism as true? Barely any, but in Japan, it's all the rage. There's plenty of Shintoists there. You are of a certain religion because someone told you to be before prior knowledge of other things, not because you read up on it when you were old enough to comprehend it and actually accepted it as truth in a logical sense. No one actually stops to think about it.

Wrong. I believe Jews must understand the Torah before their Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Catholics must understand the core beliefs before their Confirmation. That's what the sacraments are for. They initiate you as a member of the church. They give you time to think about it and if you want to change religions by then.

It's the same way with certain other social "abnormalties". It's abnormal to walk around without clothes on. Why? Because each child, as they're growing up, is taught not to do so. A baby or a toddler can shed their clothes as they please. It's "OK" for them to be naked. But as soon as they get to a certain age, they have to keep their clothes on because it's "bad" to be naked. That's what was taught. It didn't used to be that way, but because everyone was told that clothes are good and naked is bad, it is accepted as natural truth.

It wasn't that way until the serpent gave Adam and Eve the fruit of enlightenment. How do you think it came to be that we believe it was bad to be naked? It seems too random to believe that someone just randomly thought that "Oh no! I'm naked!"

Think about it. No one ever thinks anymore, and I assure you, if you really think about the origins of your religious and spiritual thoughts, you'll be confused.

At mass we think about the gospel all the time.

[*disco infiltrator*]

There were naked humans in Greece. This is accounted for, and is fact. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and we've worn clothes ever since, why did the Greeks walk around naked? I don't understand.

[*kryogenix*]

There were naked humans in Greece. This is accounted for, and is fact. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and we've worn clothes ever since, why did the Greeks walk around naked? I don't understand.

I thought that Greeks wore clothes, at least part of the time. I know they competed in the nude. Were the people that came before the Greeks naked? Or did they wear clothes, and then all of a sudden, Greek culture said it was ok to be naked?

[*disco infiltrator*]

It was just an example, but I'm pretty sure there were naked people beforehand. Indigenous tribes in Africa and South America wear little to no clothes, since their societies are not modernized, meaning they never have. Thus, the original humans did not wear clothes as well. Eventually, the Greeks wore togas and things to cover up certain parts of the body, but they were naked first.

[sadolakced acid]

I thought that Greeks wore clothes, at least part of the time. I know they competed in the nude. Were the people that came before the Greeks naked? Or did they wear clothes, and then all of a sudden, Greek culture said it was ok to be naked?

it may be the latter.

they thought the human body was a thing of beauty.

although; the fact that someone may walk around naked does not make adam and eve's tale false.

the fact that they are aware that they are naked is enough to prove it.

of course; the trend towards clothing was probably spurred more by protection from the elements than awareness of nakedness.

this probably spurred the loss of hair; less hairy females are more prefered, causing the whole species to become less hairy as time passed.

so; i will say that before humans, there already were clothes, if only animal furs stratigically joined to not fall off.

any tribes that do not have clothes and such most likely lost them out of a lack of need- when it's 100 degrees outside, you don't need furs.

which make the tale of adam and eve false.

unless, of course, you don't believe in evolution, in which case my point is moot to you.

[timeflies51]

Actually, I believe that Bible is only symbolism that is advice to help lead a better life. It teaches life lessons and strong, good ideas. When people interpret the Bible and preach/teach the meaning to others, I've found that most of the time it's a good lesson. (Not all the time, but a lot of the well-know stories and such.)

I mean, personally, I like religion because people do a lot of good things because of it. And you know what? That's awesome. Now, when people start discriminating and telling people they're going to hell... *rambles about that for a little while*

But think that people shouldn't take the Bible so literally. Instead, I think they should look beyond the literal words written and try to see the good in its meaning.