If God Has A Plan For Everyone, Then Why Is It Planned For Some People To Be Non-Believers?

Taken as total numbers of adherents religions are growing overall even as they decline in some regions of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

 

It is true that the pace of growth of religion has slowed based on the information provided above.

 

The growth of religion has slowed because "Christian" society has finally been seen as mere mythology. It happened with the Greeks. May you silly Christians pass on gracefully.

 

You assume every quote from a holy book is a fact and that each and every one of those "facts" holds as much weight as the data received from any well thought out scientific experiment.

Time's have changed, science is being infected with the same issue religion did. "My theory's better than yours, you're a dumb asshole with nothing of value to add to the existence of humanity", rather than... "Oh, that's an interesting take on things, tell me more whilst I ponder on what I currently understand of your point of view during my coffee break".

Plus, most people aren't going to study for 15 years to be able to understand the current theories of the universe, and their questions will remain. For the benefit of humanity as a whole I feel we should at least be attempting to guide people to ask the right questions, even if those questions yield no data.

I'd say it would be like nurturing the idea of mystery.

Consider this:

"God" is something much bigger and vaster than anything we can ever fully understand, yet we can comprehend it in some way.

"The Universe" is something much bigger and vaster than anything we ever fully understand, yet we can comprehend it in some way.


One of those statements belongs to religion, the other from science.


To clarify this point, I don't believe in God. I have absolutely no reason to, such as yourself, but something exists.

I'm not afraid to step on anyone's toes, I quite like stepping on toes, otherwise I wouldn't have stepped on yours.



Do you have any creative outlets?

 

If it were to be accepted at face value by the faithful that religious holy texts are not supposed to be vaunted to the same level of accuracy and account of "objective truth" as science, then there would be no need to have debates over the subject and there wouldn't be issues of trying to push for stuff like creationism or Intelligent Design to be taught in public schools. We don't often see scientists debating psychics, magicians, astrologers, etc. In a formal setting because these practioners for the most part recognize the limitations of their beliefs, generally speaking this does not seem to be so with religious proponents. Perhaps it may be the case that science faces certain limitations as well, some seem to think it has already but we don't really know the possibilities science can yield if we're trying to stomp out legitimate scientific research due to moral outrage justified by excerpts from these holy texts.

Also just to point out, in these passages Writer quotes, as far as I can tell he posts them to show what the people who wrote and adhere to the holy texts genuinely believe to be the facts, so we have the source available for analysis and points for discussion, not that he himself believes these quotes to be facts.

I would still like to see Asmo's support for his claim he made...

...regarding non-believers being held equally to believers in the holy texts.

 

Well many factors could be at play. For example the success of capitalist consumerism in making people comfortably numb. Judeo/Christian society is not at all mythology but a cultural fact.
May you editorial commentators sit and spin indefinitely.

 

thats not what he meant. you are twisting his words. obviously christian culture is real. he meant the things that they believe in are myths.

 

To clarify---you are talking less about world religions, and more about the religions that have their roots in the Middle East----to be more specific, the religions that are more sky-god based and have evolved further from their ancestral spiritual roots. To borrow from Nietzsche---these 3 religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, are the most Apollonic----which makes sense because they are even more sky god, then the Ancient Greek belief in Apollo. These three religions are so Apollonic that the God does not even need a Goddess (epitomized in the crucifixion which presented a God sacrificing himself to himself, to be reborn solely of himself, without the aid of a Goddess (though it is not unique---also appearing in India and Northern Europe---but) Christianity did this in a blatantly masculine setting.)

Christianity did what its predecessor only implied. Judaism did not have the literal story----but nonetheless it took a Canaanite God (Yahweh) and divorced it from its Goddess, and then to assure its separation, demonized the goddess and its followers (Yahweh was a consort to Astarte/Asherah/Asher).

However, when you consider other organized religions you do not find this same Apollonic control over the group in terms of believers vs. nonbelievers. In Hinduism for example, there is very very little to do over non-believers—it is not even an issue. And if you really dig for it---you would find that persecution of non-believers was more of an early Indo-European thing, as the Indo-Europeans aggressively sought control over the Dravidian and other indigenous Goddess worshippers. Before proto-Hindus assimilated the spiritual sexuality of the indigenous Goddess worshippers, they killed many of these people over their Goddess-based sexual practices.

But today, you could be a devout Hindu of the untouchable class, and what will it get you? Reincarnation to a higher caste. But what if you were a non-believer----well first of all you wouldn’t be a Hindu untouchable, but just for arguments sake----you probably would not reincarnate to a higher caste-----unless your dharmic actions/karma allowed regardless of belief. But you wouldn’t consider yourself an untouchable anyway---just racially persecuted.

How about Taoism? This religion is still very deeply tied to its ancestral roots---and is more of a spirituality than a religion. If you were a non-believer and therefore did not do homage to ancestors and the gods, would you be persecuted? No . But unless you are somehow appeasing the gods and ancestors in another way, you would not enjoy their protection, and the help and benefits they provide. And if you happened to anger them, you wouldn’t have the recourse to appeasing them as a Taoist would----you would have to go to a Taoist and ask what to do----even then you would carry out the necessary actions and would not have to convert----as there is no concept of conversion in Taoism.

Buddhism has no punishment or persecution for non-believers. Even the Buddhist hells are all about the bad things you do in life, and not about belief. But, any time you become Buddhist you enjoy the benefits thereof-----for example in the various Amida sects in Japan, turning to Amida Buddha, can lessen your burden in life, or even rescue you from one of the Hells. In these cases there is no persecution of non-believers, they just simply don’t have the right friends for the benefits so to speak. (Granted, there are Buddhist cults that have developed in modern times, and that have borrowed structurally from Christianity to control their believers with a fear of non-belief----but these are exceptions. And they are viewed as cults, just as we view cults from our Western perspective.)

This does not mean that they are free of this destructive group ethic and duality. For example, Hindus traditionally view the whole world in terms of caste---in the 20th Century, America was described by many as the top caste. And I would not want to be born a woman into anyone of these cultures (though, in all fairness, women were sexually satisfied, and as often as possible, in traditional Taoist society, as it was only through the women having an orgasm that the male could take on yin energy to be able to enjoy a long, healthy, and prosperous life. Judeo-Christian women, through much of their mainstream history, were more like chattels, and the purpose for their sex was no more than the male orgasm).

The problem is not religion. The problem is the zeitgeist we ‘all’ have inherited from what I refer to as the Post-Planter Culture----basically that point in our development into a so-called civilized people when we still lived by planting, but were in the process of forming into city-states, and solidifying the institutions we all know. It was here that we really developed an in-group out-group mentality. We all worked hard to plant, maintain, and harvest our fields----and they were ‘our’ fields----an understanding that our hunter-gatherer ancestors did not have. It was our grain, our food, and if someone from the outside wanted some, they better have something to give us for it. We also began to see the world in terms of duality----us/them, male/female, good/bad, god/devil, believer/nonbeliever. Buddhism and Hinduism, being more evolved from their ancestral roots are grounded in this same duality as the West. Taoism is not and is still grounded in multiplicity----Taoism for example simply seeks harmony with the forces of nature, rather than enlightenment and eventual merging with the cosmos from the pain and suffering of the physical world, or the overcoming of good over evil in the West. Then there is the objectivism that expressed itself most strongly in the West.

These Post-Planter Culture dynamics are the worst problem----a planter group ethic, duality, and objectivism. These dynamics play out in a very divisive and often dangerously destructive manner as we fit them in a reductionist and dogmatic manner into modernistic utopian philosophies and views. Many scientists and academicians are just as dogmatic and reductionist as a right wing fundamentalist Christian. It is still the same old fight: believers vs. nonbelievers---and it is just as dogmatic and reductionist on both sides as it has always been.

And as far as fundamentalism, creationism, Islamic Jihad, and all that other stuff----these are just reactionary actions in a world where organized religion is threatened by cultural, philosophical, and social forces they do not even understand. They are like a cornered rat, striking out, as you try to kill it with a sharpened stick. (Except that religion will never really die…) We are, after all, living in the Age of Nihilism.

 

No he is writing the words. I haven't twisted anything. Perhaps learn to say what is meant. Part of making reasonable statements is learning not to make obvious blunders. It signals to me that the subject has not been overall well considered. Not reporting on or experienced in the news but editorializing about it. True some of the things people believe contain elements of fantasy, at least to the degree that it is patently irrelevant whatever the specific belief is and insidiously to the degree that it becomes a political tool.

On the subject of whether or not good sense is overwhelming religion there continue to be conversions and many times late in life and many times by previously recognized reasonable persons. It is not science but politics and political ambitions large and small, serious and petty, that give religion the appearance of inanity. Science has a reasonable treatment for religion which does not include denigrating the subject called, religious studies.

1. 
   Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.
   
2. 
   Fact is both population growth rate and the growth rate of religion are commensurately in decline,
   
3. 
   Population in the world is currently growing at a rate of around 1.14% per year. The average population change is currently estimated at around 80 million per year. Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above.
   

 

I'm not sure if you are having an issue communicating a subtle point or if you are actually this mistaken. My position is that practically no facts can be found in holy books. They are largely a collection of the superstitions of ancient and simple peoples, pockmarked every few hundred pages with a single, passable statement of some worth which can be arrived at much more robustly and meaningfully without resorting to "believe it because the book says so".

Scripture is profoundly unscientific, and has little regard for the value of reasoning and evidence. Occassionally it is referred to and used when it serves the purposes of the religion to arrive at some simple fact, and people point to those few instances and say "see, my religion is based on reason", then they ignore all the really important parts about virgin births, angels in caves, genital mutilation, and what have you.

I'd like to see your evidence that science has become full of egotism, judgement, and insults. In reality science has undergone a wonderful maturation process in the past few decades, in large part due to the stupendous amount of information which we have uncovered; this results in people's areas of expertise being incredibly narrow and focused. As Sam Harris says, you're about as likely to find big egos at a scientific convention as you are to find nudity. Every single scientist must couch every assertion and conjecture he makes with "I'm probably not the biggest expert in the room on this subject matter, so correct me if I'm wrong, but . . . ". If he doesn't do that he risks the immediate consequences of social ridicule amongst his peers.

I'm going to point out that you have pulled this out of your ass, and it's just an opinion you have, based likely on a shockingly small sample of poorly selected scientific encounters you've had.

Please provide evidence for your assertion or evidence that my counter-assertion is incorrect and I will conceded your point.

Never before in science have the different disciplines needed each other as much as today. You will still find rude people in science, just as you will find rude people in the gravedigging business. This is not a problem with gravedigging, or with science. This is a kind of personality and interpersonal relation which transcends job descriptions.

You might as well bemoan the state of modern medicine because your doctor was curt to you this morning.

So if people aren't going to study for 15 years, because of how much data we now have, then isn't the very thing they are neglecting to study by definition a mystery? Isn't that the whole bloody endeavor of science? Exploring the mystery of our existence?

You say you want to help guide people to ask the right questions, for the benefit of humanity, even if those question yield no data . . .

Let me get this straight

Asking "What is the nature of Polio and how can we eradicate it" is a waste of time, and removes "mystery" from people's lives, and is certainly not "the right question".

Asking "Is the creator of the universe Jehovah like my pop says or is it Allah like my mum says", that's the right question which we should be focusing on.

Is that about your position here with regards to seeking knowledge?

Can you explain why you feel the need to "nurture the idea of mystery"? Can you explain to me the value found therein? In not knowing? Can you explain to me how the universe isn't manifestly the only mystery there is? And can you explain to me how science, the art and method of uncovering further mystery (every answer brings 10 questions after all), is antithetical to a love of mystery?

Are you suggesting that science and religion are really after the same thing? Because last time I checked, they are basically polar opposites of each other. Science asks questions about the universe and seeks answers. Religion concocts answers, on authority, and requires adherence to them. Remember that thing called "blasphemy"?

I also take huge, huge issue with both your statements. I'll start with the scientific one first.

You say the universe is something we won't ever fully understand. I'd like to see your proof of that. The reason being, this is a fundamental fact about reality which is part of a large debate in epistemology, and you appear to have finally cracked the debate; you know for sure that it's impossible to fully understand the universe, whatever that means.

As for the religious sentence, when you say "God is something with property x, y, z", I am puzzled, because I do not see this entity "god" in reality anywhere, outside the minds of peoples, in the same way that leprechauns exist only in the minds of peoples, as concepts.

Actually, I don't even have to step outside of religion to take issue with that religious statement. A fundamental credo of Islam is that God is fundamentally and irrevocably incomprehensible; it is a sin and blasphemy to assign to him any kind of logical structure or context. Nevermind of course that right off the bat we are to repeat that he is "All Merciful, Kind . . ." etc. That's just religion being religion.

If by "something exists" you mean some kind of transcendental mystery, I'm inclined to agree; the very nature of reality is a paradoxical mystery.

If you mean some kind of mystery which is equivalent to YWVW, then we disagree greatly, and you should not make the mistake of conflating the two.

This is a common fallacy I see with "religiously liberal" people; they look at the god of religions, and note some aspect of mysteriousness, and then they look at science, and note some aspect of mysteriousness, and conclude that science and religion are the same, or are after the same things, or that science is uncovering god, etc, etc.

They are not identical. They are not even coterminous. They merely share a very common property of things. Consider just how much of the universe is literally a mystery to you right now; the goings-on in Paris at this moment; the final thoughts of Napoleon as he died; the real nature of your financial savings (their structure as digital information); the temperature of Neptune 10km out from its core; what I am wearing right now; what your spleen is doing at this moment . . . the list is literally endless.

We don't need to artificially stunt the quest for knowledge in order to inject fabricated mystery into our lives. We're doing just fine with mystery when we dedicate our lives to unravelling it.

Online debates are one of them. Do you?

 

Mountain Valley Wolf, I am extremely well studied in eastern religions, but I appreciate you writing that. When I say "religion" in this context I just mean Abrahamic.

It's a serious point of debate whether or not things like buddhism should even be called religions. It becomes a term like "sports", where you can have Chess on one end, and Rugby on the other, and the only thing they have in common is breathing. I am also familiar with religio-historical analyses of culture from the perspective that the foundation of the city-state became the beginning of the end for us; Terrence McKenna was a very vocal proponent of this view and i am well familiar with his opus.

I feel like IMjustfishin that you are in fact twisting my words. You know very well what I mean, and no one is being confused by my choice of words. When I say "christianity is a myth", I obviously mean the supernatural contents of christianity, not the religion itself. The religion itself obviously exists, hence why I am here debating it. While I agree that we should be careful with our words (otherwise nothing gets accomplished) you are setting the bar so high as to make discussion practically impossible.

If my choice of words as above signals to you have I have not well considered this debate then consider me a novice.

Really dope? You are supporting religion by pointing out that some people, in the hour of their demise, turn to it? That is about the weakest argument for religion there is; argument from fear of annihilation.


When Voltaire was on his deathbed, and a priest was admonishing him for not embracing God and denouncing the devil, Voltaire quietly replied "Now's not the time to be making enemies!"

So reasonable people also remain reasonable on their death beds.

Could it not just be that religion has inanity in it? Like so many other things? Why is this so impossible dope? Why can't religion err? Why can't it be inferior in some way? Why is there this culture, in this forum of all places, of protecting the very idea of religion from criticism?

Forget creeping shariah, I'm getting worried about the ol' hipforums here.

This is at best a kind of taxonomy of religion, not exactly model testing and that sort of thing. Not even sure I'd call it a science, in the same way that chemistry is science; more like a hobby like stamp collecting.

Liberal analyses of religions is taking fire of late from people who are beginning to see that treating these dangerous things with kiddy gloves and reverence comes with serious consequences. Look no further than the media's coverage of Charlie Hebdo to see what I mean; musn't even IMPLY that the muslim murderers who killed in the name of Allah have any kind of reflection in their actions upon Islam! Guess the crusades were just an odd little misunderstanding between people, eh? Let's hide the bibles from this discussion, quickly.

 

I have seen that sentiment here (in Hipforums) quite a bit. Having spent 15 years living in Japan and traveling all over Asia, I find Buddhism to be very much a religion. Mainly because it is an institution, which is the primary defining point of an organized religion for me. For example, you have a definite hierarchy among the priests and leadership of the temples; there are social forms of control over the population, and they are well integrated into the political structure of the nations they have control over. It shapes the motifs and zeitgeist of the cultures of those nations where it has played as a dominant historical factor about as much as the Judeo-Christian religions within those cultures where they have done the same. We have Christian holidays and they have Buddhist ones. There is dogmatic conflict between sects, and so on and so forth.

And like churches everywhere, the priests lament the falling membership, and so forth. (I have had conversations with Buddhist priests that sounded just like conversations with priests of churches here.) Monks, and followers who spend time at the temples are put through a rigorous and strict schedule of ritual and chores, which among other things, play out a dynamic of group building, structuring, and control. The monks and priests also go out into the community for similar purposes---such as when they attend people’s homes on death anniversaries (Houji). Sutra reading as a group dynamic plays out as a group structuring dynamic and is mimicked and played out throughout Japanese and Chinese society---even at Baseball games. Much of Buddhism provides all kinds of socializing beliefs, such as those regarding afterlife and a proper course of life to make a bunch of good citizens.

There are even those sects that proselytize, e.g. Sokka Gakai----they would appear at my door just as avidly and aggressively as Jehovah Witnesses do here. The Sokka Gakai would have control over their followers just as tightly as the Jehovah Witnesses do theirs, and they had stories of miracles that would occur simply by reciting their sutra---Myoho Rengekyo.

The control and power structure of Christianity has been adopted (and strengthened to create oppressive cults here in the West, there are similarly Buddhist cults in Japan as well.

Shinto and Taoism are certainly more pseudo-religions than Buddhism (I am referring to the folk Taoism here, rather than the philosophical Taoism of Lao Tzu). Shinto was very much a spirituality transitioning into a religion, similar to the American Native practices within the Pueblos and planter cultures of the SouthWest. When Buddhism was introduced into Japan, it borrowed the institutional structure of religion—and jumped into a religion per se’. Taoism, like Shinto, is very much a spirituality handed down from a Ural-Altaic shamanism. But it too has developed a structural element with priests, and temples---control… More importantly is that both Shinto and Taoism, through this institutionalization lost a significant portion of the individual elements of spirituality, replacing it with group ritual, and reliance on the priests and mediums. This process was also evolving in the North American South West as well.

Anyway----I thought I would throw my 2 cents in on that subject…

Numerous people have compared me to McKenna, or said I should read him. The only book I have is Food of the Gods. I found it interesting, but have only read the first part of the book. I have watched one of his speeches-----I don’t like his voice. He places a lot of influence on the role of psychedelics in mankind’s development---that is interesting, but I wouldn’t place as much evidence as he does. Though its role in the development of speech? That may very well be…

 

Sorry for that last post, it was utter horse shit, I was in a rush and would have been better if I just hadn't wasted your time, however..

This does not mean there is no value in words. Aesop's fables for example. Stories creatively spun from observed principles. There is no reason to provide evidence for a race between a tortoise and a hare, because any vaguely secure person can be comfortable enough to admit that as much as that story impacted their life, it probably didn't really happen.

Yeah, I'll take that one. Daddy never approved of me.

This is why I'd suggest integrating the two in some way. Religion is narrow minded, but the emotional, aka "spiritual" aspect is present for a lot of people who don't find it in hard evidence. Some worlds are a lot more fluid and emotive than others and require a different flavour of cognition. The 2 are mutually inclusive.

It gets the ball rolling.

The concepts don't have to be limited. You rightly pointed out that we are held within the parameters of human consciousness, but if you reframe that model and think of our parameters as more of a conduit there's a lot more room to manoeuvre. Not blindly walking into things, but swinging on the ropes hung by well executed scientific method.
You're puzzled because you're throwing yourself under the same bus as most "believers" every time you stumble into this area of the philosophical landscape. The core of religion resonates so strongly with the intentions of science.

The cultural package religion comes in? Not so much, cos culture's full of it's own shit, particularly our own that capitalises on unrecognised trauma.

This argument is still based on someone else's argument.

I think it might possibly be a habit formed by the formal way of writing a dissertation. You're only allowed to express opinions if you back them up by what someone else has already said, despite the fact they might not actually have the most substantial answer anyway. The limits of this method should be self apparent, although I think I might benefit from them myself

What I'm trying to say is, theoretically, it's possible to use the momentum of religion to actually swing things into the goals of our common interests. In it's current state, yes, religion is a fuckup, but going directly against it isn't going to work long term.

The poetry seems to be lost, the soul of the matter. Not the Soul, but the heart, but not the pumping heart, the emotional heart.

Yeah I do anything I can, mainly in the realms of painting, my "job", but music is another huge part of my life. Gimme me a few days and I'll play you a song on almost anything. The reason being, no matter what instrument you're playing, a note is a note is a note. How they interact with each other determines the mood. You can depress people or you can keep em happy, but jazz is what really tickles my nipples.. moving with the rest of the band, keeping time and staying in harmony, but still bringing your own unique flavour to the table.

Side note, colours even mirror the same harmonic principles as music. More or less. It's hard to judge, I'm still refining the model and seeing which colour scale fits the best, mixing or optical(paint pigments as opposed to direct optical behaviour which, so far, is a miiiiindfuuuuuck!!)

 

I wouldn't say science has reached it's peak, science has no limitations since it follows in the wake of ingenuity. It's a creative process.

It's a possibility that scientific method may be limited to a certain cultural disposition, but said disposition would also be limiting the capacity to view religion in a different light, i.e. not as a blockage but as a door into a more intimate curiosity that only has to be opened and walked through. That curiosity can then be, to some extent, described by science.

I'm just not sure talking about shit is the best way to go about things.

It's like cancer awareness. Huge campaign, worldwide!

"It's so bad, so bad, dropping like flies etc. etc.. I'm so aware of cancer. Let's continue talking about how bad it is during a meal of processed carcinogenic crap."

 

Your words? When, where?

About what when? I didn't say anyone was being confused by your words. I do think your rap somewhat hysterical sort of like U.S. reaction to 9-11 and it is much like listening to a shock jock on conservative radio. You hammer away at absurdity as though this brings reason to the process. You are useless as an objective observer/contributor from where I sit on the subject of religion or religious study because of the prejudicial quality of your analysis. What genuinely confuses me though is whether you are really retarded or if you are just playing devils advocate. I am genuinely confused because people do have these blind spots, places where emotionally charged perception overwhelms good sense. Their countenance suddenly changes and it changes the way they process information. You might be familiar with what I am saying in the phrase getting your buttons pushed, I don't think you are one of those but it is possible hence my uncertainty.

No not really my argument at all mr.writer, perhaps read it again. I am very specific and conscious of the terms I am using. You need consider them without the impressionistic embellishments.
I said nothing about anyone's hour of demise. What I am pointing out are the ongoing statistics of mans relationship to religions. There is growth in numbers of adherents attributable births, deaths, conversions both to religion and from religion. There are also conversions from religion to religion. Sorry about getting the order mixed up here during editing.

What supernatural contents, you misspeak! The reason I point this out is that it affects your analysis and your perceptions which consist of a running narrative of comparisons and now because you have made this error you find yourself not at all comparing things on an equal or standard basis. Another example of this is the inappropriate use of the words always and never. We say those words sometimes without understanding that we are using these terms as fundamental measurements for making decisions in the moment. This is commonly seen in a lovers spat where someone says you never measure up in one way or another when the statement itself is an evaluation and simply not true over time, yet the emotional tones attending the language are very acute in the now. This gives clearer meaning to the phrase, he who lies in little, lies in much. If your temperature readings are incorrectly recorded at any point it fucks with the data. Supernatural content is a contradiction in terms much like righteous indignation. No wonder you are so hell bent.

It is not true that I hold the bar impossibly high. I hold the bar where everyone can grab on equally. First off I say what I mean and mean what I say and if there is any confusion about that I am happy to fill in the blanks. If you mean impossibly high because it is too much effort to be clear in thought or rethink in greater depth your current gestalt then I don't regard you a novice but am inclined to say waah. Intolerance is not part of the scientific toolkit, but it can be investigated with a scientific eye. An unhealed healer is a contradiction in terms. What I do make it difficult to do is continue with the silly stuff. For example forest flower does not have much to say to me. I don't take the drama out of the situation, just the cheap drama.

I understand your best and honest argument against any phenomena associated with this subject is that it is not needed, for one because there are other means.

That depends on purpose and desired aim and could be said of our presence in general.

This is the christian invitation from it's inception, a mission statement.
This is for those who are weary and downtrodden by life. Let me show you a perspective that can lighten the load, so that you are able to live and have life more abundantly. Further, the well have no need of a physician. Let those who are inclined, listen..

From my own larder
Let those that enjoy life rejoice. Let those that play Wheel of Fortune keep spinning the wheel and collecting thrills and disappointments.
The purpose here is not to teach you what an object is but that you have a subjective improvement in the quality of your experience if you so desire,. A mind without anxiety is kind.

There are only three scientifically valuable measurements you can take, It is the same or it is different and what is it's purpose. Not needed is not relevant. Religion is relevant and using your terms, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

Of course it could be and does. I have said that there exist ridiculously constructed elements that have arisen over time. You must consider it the other way as well, there are enduring core values present. There are good honest businessmen and nefarious ones. My point is science doesn't seek to preserve inanity as fact or make value judgments nor does the nefarious become guide for the honest. Religious study implies the observation of human activity and there are all sorts of medical measurements you can take. At rest as compared to singing a hymn for example. A stamp in terms of traditional stamp collecting, is a piece of paper. Stamp collecting is somewhat limited in scope. Probably why they call it a hobby and not generally an academic endeavor which requires additional rigor of observation. Not to say that some level of academic research is not present in stamp collecting and also not to say there there are not authorities on the varieties of stamps that exist. Certainly stamp collecting can be an economic activity. Stamp collecting can additionally be academically investigated as part of observed human behavior and we might ask theoretical questions like why is it done. Religious studies is profoundly interdisciplinary and whether or not the endeavor appears scientific to the level of chemistry depends on the specialized discipline applied to a specific question. To be sure of what to call a thing just account for every nuance you perceive, success as well failure. Cherry picking is political and I mean cherry picking in a metaphorical sense should my inattentive bull shit come back to bite me.

As far a liberal analysis of religion and all that you are talking about sentimental politics. The problems are not the solutions.

 

why? and why christianity specifically. i see no direct connection between anything that has called itself christianity, since the second mycian confrance, and any sort of god that might actually exist.

as for quites, how about that great line "i dine with publicans and 'sinners'", that's even from christianity. why would your god's representative, on this earth, at that time, have preferred their company?
just so he could fuck with their heads? i rather seriously doubt it was that.

 

^ Did you intend to quote me there or were you trying to respond to the passage I was quoting :unsure:

 

to what it was you were bumping.

 

Even if I don’t agree with all that the Bible teaches, I have found it to be an amazing account of the psychological and philosophical makeup of mankind. Carl Jung has written about this, Kierkegaard did a very fascinating study of it—for example an examination of Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son.

The Bible is passed down from a people who were not of the modern age—they were far less linear in their thought process, which is to say they understood the world to a greater extent in the language and context of the subconscious. Today we greatly repress the language of the subconscious, and we are so alienated from the realm of the subconscious, that much of the symbolism we encounter in daily life is completely lost to us. This is very different from our ancestors who regularly picked up on archetypal symbols, connections, and context. This alienation from the subconscious is part of the problem faced by modern man.

Take Genesis for example---of course there was no original Adam and Eve. The first two people were named Melvin and Shirley, and despite being brother and sister they screwed like rabbits… (I’m joking).

Seriously, Genesis is a masterpiece of genius----it is a symbolic account of the rise from a hunter gatherer culture where game and natural food was abundant (and it was there to be taken unlike the planter culture perspective where it took the hard work of planting and harvesting and maintaining livestock), and people talked with the animals and god directly (---a very accurate account of indigenous spirituality and how it is experienced). It is written from a Planter Culture and male dominated perspective---but taking that into consideration, it is pretty amazing in its insight. In fact, despite its masculine-dominant perspective, it was far closer to the modern viewpoint in terms of male-female relations than more contemporary theories on the subject, which believed early man to be brutishly aggressive towards the female.

But even more genius is the psychological tale it tells of ego development, and the formation of the shadow, alongside the dynamic of the ego-ideal. Ancient scriptures and myths are filled with this kind of insight-----and there was a very long period of time, after man developed a more linear thought process, that we were even able to begin to compare in psychological insight-----not till Freud and Jung, their insights were garnered in large part from Biblical and other scriptures, and other forms of myth, and fairy tales.

And then there is the historical accounts that are documented---granted it is mythohistorical---the history is tainted by a mythical perception of their history----but this is the very recording of history that occurs in any culture----even today (and I am not referring specifically to supernatural events but that is an aspect of it too). The New Testament, in my opinion, is clearly more manipulated, and political in nature. (the story of the birth, death, and rebirth, of Jesus---especially the crucifixion-----are out of place for the Middle East. Religion always builds upon its precedent, but what we see here is a sudden emergence of Indo-European motifs into a Middle Eastern framework. In other words, as much as it is a mytho-historical event, it is not solely mytho-historical to the people presented, but more Greco-Roman.) Even then, as much as it is fabricated, it represents true genius in terms of social and political control and empire building. As a tool of political and social control, and a means of cementing power after military conquest it is as genius as the Vedic texts which are much older yet still maintains a strong control over the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Part of the genius of the New Testament is the use of motifs in such a manner that it could be applied to people of various beliefs and traditions, to then unify them under a single belief system---for example there is the Mother Mary as a surrogate Goddess.

The Old Testament itself is a powerful unifying force of social and cultural control. Basically, these old texts are not simply the product of a simple superstitious people-----not simple at all.