Religion:The stupidest thing invented by mankind?

[Tr0n]

Should've went for the triple.

 

[bbson john]

You are talking about fundamentalism.

Okay, back to the here. If "God's words" are actually made by human, why can't human modify it? Fine, you said that if the change of "God's words" was a deviation from God, your stand point had become "God exists", no one can change its words unless it does so. In fact, God is made by human and human can change its words at any time.

By Mechas' definition, religions are essentially institutions. They contradict God doesn't mean they contradict themself(Or they redefine God's word in most of the cases). In fact, they make the Christianity even better, you cannot deny that!

religious moderation is a veil for extremeism. When we reseve to "respect other's beleifs", we allow a large amount of pure lunacy to exist. We need to learn to critisize and scrutinize religion in our society so that fundamentalism and extremeism cannot exist.

lol. You can think in this way but people's intention is not that.

 

[theotherguy]

religious moderation is a veil for extremeism. When we reseve to "respect other's beleifs", we allow a large amount of pure lunacy to exist. We need to learn to critisize and scrutinize religion in our society so that fundamentalism and extremeism cannot exist.

It's time we stopped being so damn respectful and speak out against the fundies, lest they grow any more powerful.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I hate it when people whip out a single verse as if it's some kind of binding and irrefutable perspective on things. You think those exact words were even ever contemplated by anyone in living memory of the period which the book refers to?

Yes, clearly even before then.
If you are assuming I don't know a great deal about the bible, you are assuming wrong.

'The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.' (Numbers 15:15, Deuteronomy 4:2)

^ Moses backs up Jesus' story.

'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. [...] whoevever practices these commandments and teaches them will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven.'' (Matthew 5:18-5:19)

^ Jesus again.

I hate it when, whenever I point out obvious flaws in the scripture, everyone says "oh well maybe it wasn't literal / maybe it was written by the wrong guy / maybe jesus had a stomach flu and was grouchy that day".
Irregardless; as long as that line is in the bible, christians everywhere have an excuse - nay, a command - to kill me and those I love if they so wish.

If Jesus didn't say that command, then what is the bible's standard for authenticity?
Forumite Raziaar called it "common sense": You use "common sense" to tell the difference between genocidal jesus and less-genocidal jesus.
(And yes, it is genocide. What else do you call the systematic elimination of every other culture on Earth?).
So if "common sense" supercedes the word of god, what is the point of the religion in the first place?

The only difference between this "biblical common sense" and secular logic is that "biblical common sense" gives you a free pass to discriminate against homosexuals, women, muslims, jews, science, etc. if that's what you "sense".

God is the head of Christ.
Christ is the head of man.
Not the other way around.
You are not allowed to worship common sense instead of god!

By letting me live, you are very likely to spend eternity of hell.
God will even give you hell before you die.

(Leviticus 26:22 and Deuteronomy 28:15-63 contain the gory details of what god does to those who break the laws, including "god will rape your wife" and "god will give you cancer".)

Is that really a risk you are willing to take?


You are taking the clearest and least obtuse messages in the bible and pretending they don't exist.
It says clearly "DO THESE THINGS" on page after page after page.
Who, then, is focusing on a few single lines and ignoring the big picture?

If that line is fake, then where, exactly, is the line where jesus calls moses a liar and says the laws aren't permanent and never were?
If jesus said he didn't support old testament law, the people would have stoned him to dust.
You cannot be a prophet and contradict the old testament.
That's the litmus test.
False prophecy carried a death penalty in those days.
That's why he got crucified, for pete's sake: he was accused of being a false prophet by his enemies.

He does say something about tending to [enemies] in distress though.

He also says to cause the distress in the first place.

It is not my fault that christianity has mutated into a strange hybrid that ignores exactly enough of the bible to survive in post-enlightenment modernity while following exactly enough to get lots of money and spread prejudices (like those against abortion and stem cell research - god says killing a fetus is not murder until one month after birth, but a corrupted version of the "thou shalt not murder" commandment now conveniently says otherwise in the eyes of the faithful).

If you had done some religious study then you would know that there is quite a strong movement that suggests most of what Jesus is purported to have said in John's gospel is about superceding Moses.

The entirety of modern christianity (and, to a lesser extent, judaism) is about superceding Moses nowadays.
So it's no wonder that this religious study group says as much. Christianity, in an increasingly logical society, has been whitewashing Jesus' support of the old-testament for decades now.
When Genesis says the world is 6000 years old, people eat that shit up.
But when Exodus tells you to kill nonbelievers, it's "no, I use common sense instead of the bible all of a sudden."

Name one thing Jesus said that clearly and definitively contradicts the old testament.
There isn't one.

Folks like you are ignoring The fundamental teachings of the bible not because you should or because you can, but because you have to in an effort to stay afloat in the century after Hitler has taught us the evil of exterminating other people old-testament style.

Your mixture of today's common sense with yesterday's common senselessness has yielded an unholy union that would make jesus pull out the whip of cords.

If you want, like I do, to read messages of tolerance and respect then they are there, why the hell do people focus on the negative so much.

The bible is almost entirely focussed on being "negative".
Back then, what you call negativity was the standard way of life.
While Moses called on his people to systematically eliminate all other cultures they encountered (which they did, it seems) and kill homosexuals, and kill rape victims, he declared:

"Keep [the old-testament laws], put them into practice, and other nations will exclaim, 'No other people is as wise and prudent as this great nation!'" (Deuteronomy 4:6)

God helped him write that speech.



...

Who says [that "Judge not lest ye be judged" means that only christians who follow the old testament are allowed to judge and execute criminals]?

The bible does. Unless jesus is contradicting the OT and is a false prophet.
We need to use some logic here, because the bible has a very strong internal logic about how and why to kill things.

Here is the context of your quote:

Two men run to jesus with an accused adulterer, caught in the act. They ask permission to stone her. Jesus says "Judge not lest ye be judged", and the guys run away. Jesus then forgives the woman and asks her to stop sinning before sending her on her own way.

Now, here are the two options of what this means:

1) Jesus meant that the Old Testament is now obsolete.

-Humans can no longer judge and cannot, therefore, stone anyone in the name of god ever again (unless jesus commands them).

-Adultery, also, is no longer a (capital) crime against god (although jesus himself presents more detail in the definition of what constitutes adultery in Mark 10:11, Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 5:28).
(Meanwhile, Matthew 5:27 reaffirms the Ten Commandments as valid in Jesus' eyes; six of the commandments constitute capital crimes and all ten of which lead to hell if broken).

-Jesus has now outed himself as a perfect match for the definition of a false prophet, effectively writing his own death sentence in the jewish culture of the time.

-To christians, Moses now fits the definition of a false prophet.

-God is proven fallible, at least in his predictions.

-The entire Old testament breaks down, since a very large portion of it concerned the "historical" precedents from which the commandments and the law are drawn.
(Sodom and Gomorrah are the source of the anti-gay stuff, as an example, while Eve is used as the reason why women are to be subjugated.)

2) Jesus meant that non-christians cannot judge and execute criminals.

-The old testament is not contradicted.

-Jesus does not contradict himself in his support of Moses.

-Jesus is not a false prophet.

-Moses is not a false prophet.

-God continues to be infallible.

-Adultery is still a crime.

-Stoning is still permitted.

-etc.

Remember, even the latest rewrites that you assume happened took place around the time of the crusades.
If you think they or the romans before them, or the old-testament jews before them, would deliberately insert nonviolence, you're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

I really am going to get some sleep now. If this was a decent hour I would set the old intellect on you.

Please do. I am very interested in this discussion.

 

[bbson john]

I think of (made up) a term: Selectively believe, or differential religion. This can defy the classical canon, but can make Christians better as well. (silly, tho)

 

[Absinthe]

You are talking about fundamentalism.

Yes, the real religious practice. The kind that stays true to the instructions of its god.

Okay, back to the here. If "God's words" are actually made by human, why can't human modify it? Fine, you said that if the change of "God's words" was a deviation from God, your stand point had become "God exists", no one can change its words unless it does so. In fact, God is made by human and human can change its words at any time.

Great, so it's all a circular jerkwad leading nowhere. Humans creating a God to delusionally worship with the full knowledge that it's a sham.

If I'm understanding you right, the amount of retarded mental gymnastics involved in this is frightening.

By Mechas' definition, religions are essentially institutions. They contradict God doesn't mean they contradict themself(Or they redefine God's word in most of the cases). In fact, they make the Christianity even better, you cannot deny that!

No, it makes them even more hollow, worthless, and inane. Erecting a religion in service to a deity and then subsequently abandoning said deity epitomizes pointlessness.

 

[bbson john]

Did you read my pre-pre-pre-previous post? I have already told you what is the necessity of the existence of religions. You have already missed the point of religion. Religion is standing here not for being defended, but it is here to comfort others, and do some others good. If we defend the religion because we should not abandon the old one, aren't we putting the cart before the horse?

 

[Absinthe]

Did you read my pre-pre-pre-previous post? I have already told you what is the necessity of the existence of religions.

You did no such thing. You made a very stretched and ill-thought comparison to morphine and essentially implied that ignorance and delusion for the sake of comfort is somehow good for people.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that should fall into anybody's idea of "necessary".

You have already missed the point of religion.

Worshipping and obeying deities is the ENTIRE point of religions involving such. Any other description of it is a warped and false method of making it seem more palatable to non-crazies.

Religion is standing here not for being defended, but it is here to comfort others, and do some others good. If we defend the religion because we should not abandon the old one, aren't we putting the cart before the horse?

God-based religion revolves around deities. You can wax on about comfort and goodness all you want, but that's stepping around the fact that everything you do should be IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.

There are better, safer, and more effective ways of deriving comfort and aid than ripping apart your own rational thought to accomodate the colossal cluster-**** that is religion for the most part. Try therapists. At least they have credentials.

 

[bbson john]

- There are better, safer, and more effective ways
Whay ways except the unhealthy physical removal of your brain parts. Do you know that therapists will advice people to join a religion? If a people over-anxious and unhappy, mental illness can be developed.


You realy don't know the value of religion.
Did you read this? Tell me, how "ill" is it?

Morphine and religion work differently, but they have almost the same effect. Just one is for physical pain, one is for mental pain.

Let's find out why people is depressed when death is imminent. As you all know, feeling is associated with memory. People may feel easy when they are staying in a known place, such as their home. Since all the things are known and people can easily comprehend the situation which they may possibly face. This is a feeling of familiarity. However, if we go to an unknown place, you may face unprecedented and undefendable threats. Your brain always assume unknown is a threat. This kind of pre-experience, or an assumed experience, in your brain induces you subconsciously fear of exploring new places. You probably won't feel it when you travel to different countries since you have watched TV programmes or read books about the place you are going to in your daily life, so the feeling of unfamiliarity is reduced. Back to here, the fear of unfamiliarity leads to a unwanted anxiety appeared before you go to that place. Death can be explained in this point. Human has no cognition of "after-death". It is totally an unknown "place", since no one returned and told us what it is. Associated with the silly, yet inter-contradictory tales we have learnt when we are young, the unpredictability is increased and exaggerated. We fear of unknown, rather than death itself. Just like when we are promoted from primary school to college, the essence of fear has never changed, but the degree of fear and anxiety have greatly increased.

Religion acts as a "delusion", like what you had said. It created the scene of after-life. Even though it is unlikely to be true, desperate patients have forcefully imposed this religious knowledge as their subjective memory, or a fake cognition of after-death. Like before you travel, you aren't feeling fear since you have the positive pre-experience, provided by your cognition of the place. The unreal cognition of death tells people that afterlife will be happy and agreeable. The preconception of "secure after-death" can diminish the unfamiliarity. Less unfamiliarity, less fear.

Just like most of the pain-killers, it doesn't help much in reality, but help you relieve yourself. Smoke and drink are hamful. Join religion in a moderate way does no harm to your health or the society.

p.s. I am going out a bit, join you later.

 

[Absinthe]

Whay ways except the unhealthy physical removal of your brain parts.

This statement proves without a doubt that you have no idea what in the blue bloody **** you are talking about. Not even in the slightest. It's one thing to not understand contemporary religion, but to not even have the faintest idea of what modern medicine and psychology are about?

This is, by far, the most batshit insane sentence that has left your brain thus far.

Do you know that therapists will advice people to join a religion?

Evidence? Because those must be some horrible therapists. And I don't mean of just a few crackpots. I want some serious, hard evidence that therapists, by and large, reccomend religion to their clients.

If a people over-anxious and unhappy, mental illness can be developed.

Great. So get some serious accredited help instead of subscribing yourself to a massively flawed social construct.

You realy don't know the value of religion.
Did you read this? Tell me, how "ill" is it?

I read it and dismissed it outright because it did nothing to validate your comparison.

Morphine is temporary.
Religion is not.

Morphine serves a singular, focused, and understood purpose.
Deity-based religion does not. At least not in this day.

But the most important distinction is that morphine isn't going to be used in such a regular and necessitative fashion that it breaks rational thought processes. Today's application of morphine isn't to fool the patient into thinking there isn't a problem. It is not a fixer-upper. It is used for short-term relief while awaiting a real solution to a problem. Religion and any fantasies of the after-life act in the exact opposite fashion.

You mentioned the fear of the afterlife, and your proposed solution (as well as your advocation of religion) is basically that people should be told there's life after death since it makes them feel good, regardless of the fact it's not based on any sort of evidence or reasonable rationale.
This is more unhealthy thinking. Anxiety about death should be more reason for a person to value his or her life. It should prompt people to find more real, tangible, and arguably more effective solutions to their problems instead of winging it on the hope that there's something beyond your lifetime of appeased misery and dread.

Now drop the painkiller comparison. It's entirely out of place.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What on Earth is "mental pain" anyways?

Are you claiming religion cures psychiatric disorders?

Which ones does it cure?


Schizophrenia?

 

[bbson john]

Turning to Religion May Ease Medical Crises

THURSDAY, Aug. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Religious faith helps people cope with stressful medical experiences such as heart surgery, new research suggests.

"These findings imply that health and mental health professionals should be more attentive to faith factors as inspirational or motivational springboards in some contexts," study lead author Amy L. Ai of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in a prepared statement.

Her team was expected to present its findings Thursday at the American Psychological Association's annual convention in New Orleans.

The study of 309 cardiac patients concluded that positive religious beliefs and resources gave people a sense of hope and social support. On the other hand, faith-based struggles and negative religious thoughts -- religious doubt, resentment against God and other reactions -- may hinder recovery.

"These pathways appear to be key in understanding how religious coping styles may be helpful or harmful to a person's ability to handle stressful situations," Ai said.

Perceived social support and hope stemming from spiritual beliefs were linked to less post-op depression and anxiety for patients who used "positive religious coping styles" in their everyday lives, the study found.

"Those who perceive more support at this critical moment may feel more hopeful about their recovery," Ai said.

Absinthe, if a patient is going to die within a few weeks, how do you comfort him rationally?

 

[Absinthe]

"More attentive to faith factors" =/= Reccomending religion to patients. And I'm assuming that applies more to people who have been religious throughout their life as opposed to, say, atheists. This study also dubiously intertwines "social support" with religious factors. So which one is it? Religion or social support?

Of course, it may very well be the case that they have less anxiety because of their faith. That still ties into the flawed thinking of abandoning reason for the sake of comfort. I know I would personally find more comfort in feeling that I had done well in life up to that point and that I have those who love and care for me.

No matter how you wash it, filling thoughts of afterlife into a patient's head is dishonest and the most outright lying. There are other ways to comfort a person aside from invoking fantasy. But is this what your argument now rests on? Religion giving people peace of mind before they die? Is that the only application?

I'm out for the night.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Religion as a second system has been replaced by the mass media.

 

[bbson john]

lol. American Psychological Association is a famous institution. These can't be fake.

Of course, it may very well be the case that they have less anxiety because of their faith. That still ties into the flawed thinking of abandoning reason for the sake of comfort. I know I would personally find more comfort in feeling that I had done well in life up to that point and that I have those who love and care for me.

It's okay. The research say "most of the", there can still be exception. Atheists can be happy. You feel comfortable when you believe in nothing doesn't mean you must be happier when you join a religion. However, most of the people aren't like you.

No matter how you wash it, filling thoughts of afterlife into a patient's head is dishonest and the most outright lying. There are other ways to comfort a person aside from invoking fantasy. But is this what your argument now rests on? Religion giving people peace of mind before they die? Is that the only application?

So, is making the patient be more fearful and anxious is the right thing to do? You think telling the truth is always better because you never care about others' feelings. For you, you feel better when you learn the truth. Even thought the truth of afterlife is unknown, you are still willing to learn the fact. I appreciate that. But the fact of afterlife, or afterdeath as a less religious term, is unknown. Most of the people may feel much more terrified and anxious when they've learnt this truth. People who are always uneasy about their fate can hardly be mentally healthy. The fact is poisonous to them. Would you wish to poison them with the excuse of "telling the truth"? Or would you let them lead a happy and easy life? Always remember, the truth is not so important for everyone. You and me would always like to learn the truth, but this is not for all people. We want to learn the truth because this makes us feel better. People deny the truth because denying the truth makes them feel better, as well. We all want to feel better. We should not impose feeling on others. Offer them some relief. It is the true thing which is good for them.

p.s. If the patient asks you, 'what lies after-death?", how do you answer them?

 

[Solaris]

Religion as a second system has been replaced by the mass media.

Indeed, although it still has a very large peace to play, 'specially in the USA: "God told me to invade Iraq".

 

[Absinthe]

lol. American Psychological Association is a famous institution. These can't be fake.

Did I ever say it was? Oh no, wait. I don't think I ever did. Thanks for the straw man.

And they're presenting their findings to the APA. Reading comprehension! I can only go off the snippets in your quote.

It's okay. The research say "most of the", there can still be exception. Atheists can be happy. You feel comfortable when you believe in nothing doesn't mean you must be happier when you join a religion. However, most of the people aren't like you.

Most of the people engage in the same back-asswards reasoning that has been discussed for the past bajillion or so pages.

So, is making the patient be more fearful and anxious is the right thing to do? You think telling the truth is always better because you never care about others' feelings. For you, you feel better when you learn the truth. Even thought the truth of afterlife is unknown, you are still willing to learn the fact. I appreciate that. But the fact of afterlife, or afterdeath as a less religious term, is unknown. Most of the people may feel much more terrified and anxious when they've learnt this truth. People who are always uneasy about their fate can hardly be mentally healthy. The fate is poisonous to them. would you wish to poison them with the excuse of "telling the truth"? Or would you let them lead their lives easily? Always remember, the truth is not so important for everyone. You and me would always like to learn the truth, but this is not for all people. We want to learn the truth because this makes us feel better. People deny the truth because this makes them feel better, as well. We all want to feel better. We should not impose feeling on others. Offer them some relief. It is the true thing which is good for them.

I don't care if people choose out of their own free will to turn to faith when nearing death. The only person that affects is themselves. My only argument is that it's irrational no matter how you dress it up.

But to address your overall argument: I have no problem with making people more anxious and fearful if that means they lose their faith in the process. None at all. God knows a lot of people are anxious and fearful because of faith any way. And I think the abandonment of it would have short-term reprecussions until everybody got their head screwed back on straight.

p.s If the patient asks you, 'what lies after-death?", how do you answer them?

"I don't know." I wouldn't have to tell him "Nothing", because he most likely wouldn't be asking the question if he already thought the same. I most certainly wouldn't make up a story, however.

 

[bbson john]

I don't care if people choose out of their own free will to turn to faith when nearing death. The only person that affects is themselves. My only argument is that it's irrational no matter how you dress it up.

No one say it is ration. But it is good for health.

But to address your overall argument: I have no problem with making people more anxious and fearful if that means they lose their faith in the process.

They are anxious and fearful not because they lost their faith but they are affraid of death.

None at all. God knows a lot of people are anxious and fearful because of faith any way. And I think the abandonment of it would have short-term reprecussions until everybody got their head screwed back on straight.

Why people have to suffer a reprecussion when the reprecussion is not necessarily to be suffered? And the reprecussion can be long-term. Sustaining too much anxiety can lead to depression, paranoia and schizophrenia. That's a fact. Even the result is not that serious, as we all know, a patient heals faster if he is happy. In general speaking, a person is healthier when he is happy. This result has been deduced by different well-known researches, don't try to argue with me on that.

"I don't know." I wouldn't have to tell him "Nothing", because he most likely wouldn't be asking the question if he already thought the same. I most certainly wouldn't make up a story, however.

As a doctor, you are right, though the fact is that this answer makes the patient's condition worse. Blame our hormone.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Yes, clearly even before then.
If you are assuming I don't know a great deal about the bible, you are assuming wrong.

'The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.' (Numbers 15:15, Deuteronomy 4:2)

^ Moses backs up Jesus' story.

'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. [...] whoevever practices these commandments and teaches them will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven.'' (Matthew 5:18-5:19)

^ Jesus again.

Once again you are using OT and only Matthew to argue a meaningless point. I said that I was an admirer of the positive aspects of the New Testament, not of the entire system. Your focus on the negativity is more to do with you than me.

I hate it when, whenever I point out obvious flaws in the scripture, everyone says "oh well maybe it wasn't literal / maybe it was written by the wrong guy / maybe jesus had a stomach flu and was grouchy that day".
Irregardless; as long as that line is in the bible, christians everywhere have an excuse - nay, a command - to kill me and those I love if they so wish.

People point out these flaws because first off, you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. There are no surviving copies of the original Bible even if such a thing were to exist. It would actually have been a series of scrolls in its original form so unless you are reading from those bad boys then there is a real issue with taking things too literally, we are forced to be interprative so that we can get some sense from the damn thing.

Plus I think you are using a fair degree of interpretation yourself if you can say that Jesus actively encouraged real violence.

If Jesus didn't say that command, then what is the bible's standard for authenticity?
Forumite Raziaar called it "common sense": You use "common sense" to tell the difference between genocidal jesus and less-genocidal jesus.
(And yes, it is genocide. What else do you call the systematic elimination of every other culture on Earth?).
So if "common sense" supercedes the word of god, what is the point of the religion in the first place?

The only difference between this "biblical common sense" and secular logic is that "biblical common sense" gives you a free pass to discriminate against homosexuals, women, muslims, jews, science, etc. if that's what you "sense".

This is a matter of doctrine which I think that you'll find I have a problem with. Although I am not an active part of any branch of christianity I agree with those that believe that only a personal relationship with God is possible and that the Bible is a source of inspiration for that relationship. You can take its lessons any way you please but i'll call you a hater if you use it as a grounds for any prejudice. I believe that religions should preach love and co-operation, that is my perspective on their role quite different from your more cynical perspective.

God is the head of Christ.
Christ is the head of man.
Not the other way around.
You are not allowed to worship common sense instead of god!

By letting me live, you are very likely to spend eternity of hell.
God will even give you hell before you die.

(Leviticus 26:22 and Deuteronomy 28:15-63 contain the gory details of what god does to those who break the laws, including "god will rape your wife" and "god will give you cancer".)

Is that really a risk you are willing to take?

I can't think of a way to try and answer you over this. Your OT references may well appear to be quite vicious, but so does the lifestyle that everyone had to enjoy in the early days of Christian civilisation. I would suggest that this kind of language is more likely to impress a far more simplistic people than we currently have today. See my above response for reasons why I don't think the violence matters.

Just so you don't think i'm giving up on this one I have to say my specific knowledge of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is pretty weak. If you really want to make a real point get something from each of the NT books that backs up your claim as opposed to hawking out the infamously intolerant OT references.

You are taking the clearest and least obtuse messages in the bible and pretending they don't exist.
It says clearly "DO THESE THINGS" on page after page after page.
Who, then, is focusing on a few single lines and ignoring the big picture?

Clear and least obtuse? Who wrote them? When? In what language? What makes this any clearly than the translations of Arabic poetry that make up the beginning of John's Gospel.

If that line is fake, then where, exactly, is the line where jesus calls moses a liar and says the laws aren't permanent and never were?
If jesus said he didn't support old testament law, the people would have stoned him to dust.
You cannot be a prophet and contradict the old testament.
That's the litmus test.
False prophecy carried a death penalty in those days.
That's why he got crucified, for pete's sake: he was accused of being a false prophet by his enemies.

I'm really sorry to be pulling the same trick as you but read up John's gospel. It's all in figurative language though, so the small amount of effort it requires to make these connections is maybe a little much for you to deal with.

He also says to cause the distress in the first place.

It is not my fault that christianity has mutated into a strange hybrid that ignores exactly enough of the bible to survive in post-enlightenment modernity while following exactly enough to get lots of money and spread prejudices (like those against abortion and stem cell research - god says killing a fetus is not murder until one month after birth, but a corrupted version of the "thou shalt not murder" commandment now conveniently says otherwise in the eyes of the faithful).

Not my problem.

The entirety of modern christianity (and, to a lesser extent, judaism) is about superceding Moses nowadays.

The Jews do what now? Supercede with what? this is nothing to do with modern christianity either. I can't begin to tell you how this is not a description of a truthful situation.

So it's no wonder that this religious study group says as much.

This study group was a part of my education, we did objective religious study, that's why I know things. There was active work to avoid indoctrination of any kind.

Christianity, in an increasingly logical society, has been whitewashing Jesus' support of the old-testament for decades now.
When Genesis says the world is 6000 years old, people eat that shit up.
But when Exodus tells you to kill nonbelievers, it's "no, I use common sense instead of the bible all of a sudden."

Name one thing Jesus said that clearly and definitively contradicts the old testament.
There isn't one.

I have to go get a train...i'll be back for you.

 

[Absinthe]

Rupert, if you don't bother yourself with a significant portion of Christianity (namely its negative aspects), then why bother with it at all? I don't see what simplifying and cherry-picking religion accomplishes except to undermine one's faith.

 

[Absinthe]

No one say it is ration. But it is good for health.

You have yet to prove this to be the general case.

They are anxious and fearful not because they lost their faith but they are affraid of death.

Relevant difference? You lose your faith, you lose hope in the afterlife.

Awesome. I'm all for it.

Why people have to suffer a reprecussion when the reprecussion is not necessarily to be suffered? And the reprecussion can be long-term. Sustaining too much anxiety can lead to depression, paranoia and schizophrenia. That's a fact. Even the result is not that serious, as we all know, a patient heals faster if he is happy. In general speaking, a person is healthier when he is happy. This result has been deduced by different well-known researches, don't try to argue with me on that.

Great. Then they should seek aid and support outside of religion, since you've admitted time and time again that it's a sham.

You're twisting the argument so to make it seem like I want people to be nervous wrecks and that I don't want them to be happy. That's dishonest on your end. I'd just prefer people to obtain real solutions to their problems that involve valuing life in its current state instead of stupidly attaching themselves to fantasy.

As a doctor, you are right, though the fact is that this answer makes the patient's condition worse. Blame our hormone.

You have offered no evidence of this as a general rule. The most you can argue is that this applies only to those who are already religious.

Invoking religion isn't just a mere white lie. Subscribing to it involves accepting an army of strings attached that apply to ethics, morality, purpose, and commandment. Those extend beyond the individual's comfort zone. Average Joe may derive peace of mind from his faith in God, but now he has to hate gays, oppose stem-cell research, and possibly kill people worshipping false idols. Does this sound like a good and healthy avenue for healing? Don't try to tell me it is.

And before you go off on another one of your little "lol tahts not what NEW CHRISTIANITY is about" spiels - No. That's what all Christianity is about. Otherwise it's not Christianity.

 

[Solaris]

No one say it is ration. But it is good for health.

Being religious is? Becuase you're wrong if that's what you mean.

They are anxious and fearful not because they lost their faith but they are affraid of death.

You cannot asert that, everyone has their own individual fears and beliefs and trying to generalise everyones fears and their causes is flawed from the word go.

Why people have to suffer a reprecussion when the reprecussion is not necessarily to be suffered? And the reprecussion can be long-term. Sustaining too much anxiety can lead to depression, paranoia and schizophrenia. That's a fact. Even the result is not that serious, as we all know, a patient heals faster if he is happy. In general speaking, a person is healthier when he is happy. This result has been deduced by different well-known researches, don't try to argue with me on that.

Anxiety can cause Schizophrenia?? Got any proof, becuase I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

As a doctor, you are right, though the fact is that this answer makes the patient's condition worse. Blame our hormone.

Again you have no way of knowing this people react in very different ways.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Once again you are using OT and only Matthew to argue a meaningless point."

How is this point meaningless?
There are approximately 2 billion christians on Earth.
Many million of them think the bible is 100% literal with no contradictions.
If those people kill me, there is no aspect of their faith that says they are wrong in doing so.

This isn't about you. I honestly don't care about what you believe; what you believe does not supercede what the bible says.

"There are no surviving copies of the original Bible even if such a thing were to exist. [...] we are forced to be interprative so that we can get some sense from the damn thing."

That's, frankly, absurd. You can interpret any thing in any way. If you are assuming in advance that jesus is peaceful because that's how we imagine him, then you can ignore and interpret and re-interpret with impunity.
Maybe walking on water was a metaphor for bridging the gaps and uniting nations?
Maybe the whip of cords is a metaphor for reaching out to those you love?
Maybe drinking his blood is a metaphor for Kool-Aid?

The bible is a law book.
People forget that it is a book of laws.
How many metaphors are there in our current legal documents?
How many exist in any other legal document you have ever heard of?
Can I interpret today's manslaughter laws as a metaphor for industrialization?

People of the year 30AD would have no qualms about reading the bible as a literal document.
They had no reason to interpret, and every reason not to.
Remember, if you break the laws, god will rape your wife and give you cancer.

If they thought Jesus was the son of god, that false prophecy is a capital crime, and that adulterers should be stoned to death, what do you honestly think the chances were that they would read "Anyone who sacrifices to other gods must be destroyed." as a metaphor for something positive?

"Plus I think you are using a fair degree of interpretation yourself if you can say that Jesus actively encouraged real violence."

Two christian men ran up to him and asked for his blessing to stone a girl to death.
Wouldn't that be troubling to Jesus, if his own followers were following the old testament and killing people against his will?
Wouldn't he say "no, never ever kill people" instead of "do not judge until you are worthy."
Why would the men think Jesus would want an execution in the first place?

Also, there's that whip of cords.
It would seem to me that the cord attack shows exactly what Jesus is about, without using metaphor.
Jesus attacked people, beat them out of his church until they were bleeding, and then healed them.
That fits the literal Jesus perfectly: kill and care simultaneously.
Lucky for the money changers that they hadn't commited a capital crime there.

"I agree with those that believe that only a personal relationship with God is possible and that the Bible is a source of inspiration for that relationship."
[...]
I believe that religions should preach love and co-operation"

See, that's the trouble: your ideal religion and christianity the real religion are mutually incompatible.

What you are using there is secular logic with the word "god" stapled onto it (and thus nullifying the point of logic).
It's the same thing all forms of christianity are doing today.
How many of them are exterminating nonbelievers?
-None.
How many are "interpreting"?
-All of them.

The christianity that jesus intended is dead, but the ghost is still flying around telling people to keep condoms out of Africa and that cures for disease aren't worth the life of an amoeba.

What you are describing to me is the assumption that well over 50% of the bible is worthless, and the rest is only maybe worthless.
What is there to believe then?
Where did the idea of this god come from then?
The entire bible fails as a recording of jesus, apparently, yet people still worship jesus - because the bible says so!

Without the bible, what would have put into people's heads the absurd notion of Jesus the deity in the first place?
There is no "personal" route to the christian god, because all christianity is based to at least some degree on the text of the bible.

It'll be personal when you invent the god on your own, with no external influence.
Until that happens, you are a christian and the bible is your law book.
Dismiss the bible, and you aren't a christian.

The bible is not, and was never intended to be a collection of inspirational quotes.
It's not Chicken Soup for the Soul.
It was written as a literal document and it was modified into a literal document.
the bible can be modified by prophets, but only so long as they never contradict the old testament.
So all this ballyhoo about "it's not the original so I can bastardize it as much as I want" is poppycock.

"I would suggest that this kind of language is more likely to impress a far more simplistic people than we currently have today."

There you go again: the bible is obsolete and vague because for some reason it is only designed to appeal to simpletons, to you, in other words, the bible is stupid and the only way to be smart is to replace all the stupid key parts with secular logic.
How does this support belief in jesus as a good thing again?

The bible is obsolete - "for more simple people" - and what we have in churches today is a bastardized version of that same idiocy.

It is like an idiocy buffet: you're presented with all the biggest superstitions of the 20AD and you pick and choose the ones that fit your pre-existing lifestyle.
-You won't sell your yacht or kill your wife, so you ignore the parts that say so.
-You hate homosexuals and muslims so you follow the parts that call them evil.
-But you don't want to go to jail, so you ignore the parts that say to exterminate them all.
-You can't understand the Big Bang so you believe in genesis.
-You understand medicine, so you aren't afraid that ejaculation will contaminate you with evil.
-etc.

Modern society has killed the bible, and what we have now is a pale ghost of an imitation.
If the entire bible is retarded, then why should we base our worldview off of the chopped-up parts of the bible, presented to us as retarded quotes?

Why is it that we can never have a non-christian president in the white house?
Why does socity at large ask "What Would Jesus Do?" (what would jesus vote) when they have absolutely no clue what jesus actually would do?

If the bible is as untrustworthy and inaccurate as you say it is, and if it really is almost entirely interpretation, then jesus is no different than a fictional character.

We interpret fiction. We understand fact.

"Just so you don't think i'm giving up on this one I have to say my specific knowledge of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is pretty weak. If you really want to make a real point get something from each of the NT books that backs up your claim as opposed to hawking out the infamously intolerant OT references."

I have presented a ton of clear facts.
If you would like to disprove anything I have said, you will need to present facts of your own.


If the old testament is infamously intolerant, and the jesus in matthew says that the old testament is absolutely correct forever, and that statement matches the worldview and practices of the time, then what exactly is my error when I say the bible contains this intolerance and demands this intolerance from christians?

"Christians are supposed to massacre other religions in the exact way the old testament commands."
If the bible contradicts that statement in any way, then show me my error.

 

[tehsolace]

Religion is used to inspire our lives towards bettering ourselves.

As long as they are not being threatened into following the beliefs (like being afraid of going to hell, for example), then its religion can point people towards bettering themselves.

Thats why I think Christianity has done so well in europe and america... because its less about traditions and more about bettering one's self.

 

[esplin]

This thread makes your great lord Jesus cry.

 

[PvtRyan]

Part 2 of "The Root of All Evil" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kcKInudkq4
(the 'About this Video links to the next section of the movie if you expand it by clicking on 'more')

Great program

 

[bbson john]

- You have yet to prove this to be the general case.

Religion is good for health, I have already proven it. The proposition is over simplified, but I don't want to repeat my words actually. This result is good enough: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=63398


- That's dishonest on your end. I'd just prefer people to obtain real solutions to their problems that involve valuing life in its current state instead of stupidly attaching themselves to fantasy.

The stupidest thing is you don't accept there are insolvable problem. People are going to die, how do you "save" them? People are anxious about their surgery, how can we help us? Hundreds of millions of people are suffering from poverty and starvation, how do the WORLD help them?

First, a person's personality is not necessarily to be affected by religion. It is so clear that there are different characteristics in a church, instead of mono-characteristic. There are good and bad in church, instead of all good or all bad. People just won't be so easily affected by their religion, a person's personality can be hardly changed since it is inborn. Personality affects the judge on morality. No change in personality, no change in morality.

Second, anxiety causes the hibition of the function of digestive and immune systems. Over-anxious person are likely to have anxiety disorders and Neurasthenia, which will have dire ramifications. It is based on fact. Stressed for too long can cause cortisol over-secreted. Immune, self-repair system is inhibited. Our brain forcus too much on the substancial dangers (subjective, perhaps unreal), leads to apprehensive complex and depression. Cortisol leads to brain damage (as you all know, brain damage is almost always permanent), the ability to memorize is reduced, and sleep and concentration can be hardly carried out in this case. Anxiety increases our blood-pressure, greatly increases the chance of having a shock and coronary heart diseases. Then, diabetes is common here. Of course this is only one of the example while it is impossible to list out all the negative affect of anxiety. People can: join a religion as a prevention, or suffer a long-term perhaps endless intense medical treatment.

At last, it is not the matter that whether we are deceiving ourselves. religion can be a delusion. If people don't join one, their brains still have a delusion. They think they are always facing horrible dangers, uncertainty. Is this a delusion as well? In fact, it is a delusion which is MUCH worse than religion.

 

[Cole]

The stupidest thing is you don't accept there are insolvable problem. People are going to die, how do you "save" them? People are anxious about their surgery, how can we help us? Hundreds of millions of people are suffering from poverty and starvation, how do the WORLD help them?

All problems are solvable. It only takes time.
What is Death? I want you to explain it to me. What actually happens when you die. I am talking at an atomic level. Because LIFE is only an illusion. Everything around you, including you, is just an unimaginable number of atomic reactions happening every picosecond. Recations from other actions.
So how can you save someone if you fail to understand that Life is an illusion. That everything is just a series atomic of reactions. Define death for me on an atomic level out of an illusionionary scope.

Everything is a series of atomic reactions. There is an answer for everything. It only takes time. When we use Death or Life they are words that mean a lot. They are words that when defined out of an illusion are nothing shorter than an article.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Essay

I'll be answering this tomorrow damn you

 

[bbson john]

Everything is a series of atomic reactions. There is an answer for everything. It only takes time. When we use Death or Life they are words that mean a lot. They are words that when defined out of an illusion are nothing shorter than an article.

Do you feel like, in reality, you are playing a First person shooter game? You have the ability to control yourself, and you can sense objects all around you. You can think within your mind. Don't you feel like the concept of "You" is not necessary? A body can still sense, think, react without "You". A body can still act like a normal person, proving theories like normal person without "You", just the "You" should not exist if the world is made of atoms only. Still, why "You" is here?

I am not imposing to concept "You" in to any specified word which already has it own definition. "You" is a abstract idea, a thing that within your body, like another person, like a spirit looking through from the, or your, body. "You" is you, but not your body, or it is beyond your body. Your body can work perfectly without "You". "You" is a thing which makes you feel like you are playing First Person Shooter Game in reality. If "You" does not exist, the world can still work totally the same, but just there is no observor.

This is my idea to show there is something beyond atoms. But it is out of topic.


If a patient ask you whether my surgery will succeed, how would you answer him? Say, it is of 80% that the surgery would success. Note that - if you answer you will have 80% of chance it will be success, you are not answering him logically. You are lying to him, since there is never a surgery succeed eighty-percently, i.e. either success or not - How would you answer him?

At last, reality is always upsetting. If you always tell all the truth, the patient will fall into depression. I have already told you the negative effect of it. The medical truth have to be told since it is what a doctor should do, but if you tell him how atoms will interact, you are not helping him.

 

[Cole]

Who says I can choose? Everything I say, think, do, is a series of atomic reactions.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every Recation has an equal and opposite reaction. This makes a chain reaction.

Everything I say, do, think, type, everything.. are all based on these reactions. There is no free will.

So whatever I tell that patient...whatever I do.. is not free will. I have no choice. It is whatever those atomic reactions are doing at that specific time.

 

[CrazyHarij]

of course there's free will

i decide to post in this thread based on my reactions to what i've read, but i might as well choose not to. i can choose to stay up or go to sleep. what my choice consists of depends on what my evaluation is, but that doesn't mean i don't have free will, it only means my choices are not completely irrelevant

 

[Neo_Kuja]

If a patient ask you whether my surgery will succeed, how would you answer him? Say, it is of 80% that the surgery would success. Note that - if you answer you will have 80% of chance it will be success, you are not answering him logically. You are lying to him, since there is never a surgery succeed eighty-percently, i.e. either success or not - How would you answer him?

Basic Maths. Eighty percent of people that have the surgery carry on with their normal lives with minimal problems. That is, eight out of ten people who go into the surgery come out with their problem resolved. Your interpretation of the question seems to be that the problem is fixed 80% of the time in the actual surgery (i.e 80% of the tumour is cut out). This is not so :

There are two outcomes :

1.Success
2.Failure

Success happens 80% percent of the time (i.e Eight out of the Ten patients have a successful operation/proceduere, etc ...)
Failure happens 20% of the time (i.e Two out of Ten patients have a unsuccessful operation/procedure, etc ...)

Do you feel like, in reality, you are playing a First person shooter game? You have the ability to control yourself, and you can sense objects all around you. You can think within your mind. Don't you feel like the concept of "You" is not necessary? A body can still sense, think, react without "You". A body can still act like a normal person, proving theories like normal person without "You", just the "You" should not exist if the world is made of atoms only. Still, why "You" is here?

There is absoloutly no proven fact that has to do with souls (yes, that is the point you are trying to get across) being immaterial or untouchable. There are substances that, even now, we cannot detect or identify, as we are, techologically speaking, ignorant. The only time we can confirm that our soul (or "You") is intangible is when we have reached scientific perfection, and that is feasibly impossible as there is *always* something more to discover.

This is one of the more perplexing aspects of religion. By stating that all the aspects around creating "life" we know today are shown in a book, of all things, is insulting to nature itself. There are scientific aspects involved that we, as humans, cannot hope to comprehend for hundreds of years, let alone now.

Saying that we have discovered all that is to be discovered about our "creation" is illogical in nature.

 

[ericms]

If there was no fire, humanity wouldn't have lasted, so it's better then religion.

Fire > You.

LOL.. no. Why would you even say something as stupid as that?

 

[bbson john]

Basic Maths. Eighty percent of people that have the surgery carry on with their normal lives with minimal problems. That is, eight out of ten people who go into the surgery come out with their problem resolved. Your interpretation of the question seems to be that the problem is fixed 80% of the time in the actual surgery (i.e 80% of the tumour is cut out). This is not so :

There are two outcomes :

1.Success
2.Failure

Success happens 80% percent of the time (i.e Eight out of the Ten patients have a successful operation/proceduere, etc ...)
Failure happens 20% of the time (i.e Two out of Ten patients have a unsuccessful operation/procedure, etc ...)

But the patient is asking HIS situation, whether his surgery will succeed. Not the general situation. Not the number of people who will be success, but the patient is asking, the only person, the patient himself, whether he will be okay. If you answer like that, he won't be feeling you are helping him.

There is absoloutly no proven fact that has to do with souls (yes, that is the point you are trying to get across) being immaterial or untouchable. There are substances that, even now, we cannot detect or identify, as we are, techologically speaking, ignorant. The only time we can confirm that our soul (or "You") is intangible is when we have reached scientific perfection, and that is feasibly impossible as there is *always* something more to discover.

This is one of the more perplexing aspects of religion. By stating that all the aspects around creating "life" we know today are shown in a book, of all things, is insulting to nature itself. There are scientific aspects involved that we, as humans, cannot hope to comprehend for hundreds of years, let alone now.

Saying that we have discovered all that is to be discovered about our "creation" is illogical in nature.

Did you actually read my theory? I am not talking the "intangible soul" at all. I am not arguing about how logical how wonderful creation has been. I am speaking my own words. You... Well, I shouldn't really present my theory, even it is neither a theory nor 'tis something which is worth to be presented. The resentment against Christianity is so overwhelming that people call every new idea as the evil offspring of the scary Christianity. No matter what is the idea is people've just turned off their ear and barked like a shit dog. What is a shit dog, a shitty dog? No, a shit dog is kinda dog which eat its shit whenever it pooped. Where are those friggin' shit dogs? LOOK't ABOVE, IT's BARKING!!! D: D: D:

Chill out, to me, not you. Really not you.
Okay, What is the difference between the feeling of a computer and the feeling of a human being.?

 

[CrazyHarij]

But the patient is asking HIS situation, whether his surgery will succeed. Not the general situation. Not the number of people who will be success, but the patient is asking, the only person, the patient himself, whether he will be okay. If you answer like that, he won't be feeling you are helping him.

but life isnt a ****ing bed of roses.. sometimes life is harsh, and you have to accept that. telling people lies or half truths just to make them feel better is completely idiotic in my opinion, if a doctor can lie to a patient about a serious disease, government officials can lie to the people about major issues and simply say "nothing's wrong", etc.

 

[bbson john]

but life isnt a ****ing bed of roses.. sometimes life is harsh, and you have to accept that. telling people lies or half truths just to make them feel better is completely idiotic in my opinion, if a doctor can lie to a patient about a serious disease, government officials can lie to the people about major issues and simply say "nothing's wrong", etc.

You mean sometimes, not all the times? For you it is sometimes, for some patients their life gonna be ceaslessly harsh until the day they die. Have you ever experience hopelessness?

 

[Absinthe]

bbson john: "People need to be lied to. Not all of the time. Just some of the time. And they need to be feeling sad. But not a little sad. Like, deathly sad. And they should only be lied about some things in order to feel better, not all things. And religion is the super win because science just wants to cut your brain apart."

It's funny that you mention somebody whose life is "ceaselessly harsh". Your apparent solution to their problem is to take what's dished to them and bear through it all with gritted teeth because - Gosh! Even though my life sucks ass, at least things will be better once it's all over.
Here's a novel idea! Why don't we actually address the causes and factors for somebody's misery instead of instead of going through the do-nothing "meek shall inherit the earth" routine.

I'm still waiting for other examples of religion's practical use aside from "Terminal patients feel warm and fuzzy".

 

[ericms]

Control. It's not a bad thing either.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I am still convinced that bbson is making nothing more than an airtight case for mass suicide.

If your mental stability relies on the delusion that death is the best thing that'll ever happen to you, then by all means I think you should just off yourself and skip the "ceaselessly harsh" middleman.

Think of it as the cyanide pill in a spy movie: when life goes bad, you hit the "eject" button and launch yourself into eternal splendour.

How is this bad?

It ends pain - that's what you want.
You no longer have to worry about death - that's also what you want.
You'd be delusional - but you fully accept that.
You'd be doing a terrible disservice to human progress in the material world - but you have no problem with that either, as long as it ends the pain of living.

Isn't that the solution?
To you, life is horrible to the point that you need to give yourself what I consider a form of brain damage to tolerate it.
(What else do you call willfully programming your head with false data?)
I say suicide solves every problem you bring up, but with none of the mess.

Why just kill your rationality when you can kill your whole body along with it?