Speaking for myself, consider your perspective of other religions. That is how I view your religion.
However you look at it, someone's time here on this earth is done. Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife. And that sucks.
I actually disagree; maybe it's a "glass half empty" thing. The major emotional impact of the end of a life is on the people still here, and those people can, to some extent, control their own views. In the end, the mortality rate for all people is the same: 100%. And nobody is "entitled" to a set amount in the meantime; that's not how the universe is set up. Compounding the time difficulty is the fact that our perception of time can't be trusted anyway; sometimes an hour feels like forever, sometimes a year goes by and I wonder what happened to it. So it always seems to me that the numerical quantity of time that I, or anyone else, spends on Earth is not in any way a meaningful value.
It's how the time is spent that counts.
What that leaves me with is the view that when someone's time ends, it's better to celebrate the good memories of the span they were here. Calculating how much longer they were "supposed to" be here is an exercise in masochism. I'm speaking in a general sense here, and not in any way trying to apply this generality to any specific persons or situations -- this is just the best way I can to explain how this particular atheist finds himself OK with there not being a "heaven" to rely on, and also explains why I have no problem with people being permitted to end their time here in a manner of their choosing, rather than involuntarily having it extended.
EDIT: There are situations in which a person's time ends through malice or criminal negligence -- murder, drunk driving accidents -- that do indeed inspire me to rage. But for any sort of "act of God" or of the person's own personal choice, I try to look at things differently.
|
I actually disagree; maybe it's a "glass half empty" thing. The major emotional impact of the end of a life is on the people still here, and those people can, to some extent, control their own views.
From a psychological point of view, I guess I'm most unhappy because I'm selfish. I may say or imply that he wasn't done or he had more to do, but often I really mean that I'm not "done" with him or have more to do with him.
As far as "control their own views" -- is that really that different than believing that there is a "better place" that he has gone to? Or that you may feel that he no longer has to deal with the crap here -- American politics, sickness, death of other loved ones, etc.
From a strictly logical point of view, there is no reason for all the emotional reactions to someone passing on. I think that the greatest human reason for an emotional reaction is that you know that there will never be an opportunity to interact with that person again. (At least on this world.) Which, while possibly a little selfish, I feel it's still a valid emotion to feel.
EDIT: After re-reading this, I don't think I'm explaining myself well. Saying that we can control our views on death I feel reduces us to simply a "circle of life" concept. And while that may be great for animals, I like to think of us as at least a little more than that.
And while that may be great for animals, I like to think of us as at least a little more than that.
Again, that view is your choice. As a Buddhist, I go a lot further in the other direction: not only are we not different from animals, fundamentally we're not all that different from trees, water, and dirt. Which might sound depressing until you turn it around and realize the correlary: that every grain of dust is the universe, in a sense.
|
And while that may be great for animals, I like to think of us as at least a little more than that.Again, that view is your choice. As a Buddhist, I go a lot further in the other direction: not only are we not different from animals, fundamentally we're not all that different from trees, water, and dirt. Which might sound depressing until you turn it around and realize the correlary: that every grain of dust is the universe, in a sense.
and yet it is not. Which is why we do not mourn the loss of things like cancer cells. Well any sane person would not.
|
|
for Kirth, in case you had never seen this before.
Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord, All praise is Yours, all glory, all honour and all blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong, and no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.
Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
Who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour,
Of You Most High, he bears the likeness.
Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,
In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
Praised be You, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,
And fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.
Praised be You my Lord through Sister Water,
So useful, humble, precious and pure.
Praised be You my Lord through Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.
Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,
Mother Earth
who sustains and governs us,
producing varied fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
Praise be You my Lord through those who grant pardon for love of You and bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace, By You Most High, they will be crowned.
Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm. Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks,
And serve Him with great humility.
for Kirth, in case you had never seen this before.
It's a cute poem, but... why are you quoting Francis of Assisi to me?
Well any sane person would not.
It may be that I'm not; I don't know. But I feel bad for the grains I eat.
Speaking for myself, consider your perspective of other religions. That is how I view your religion.I'm not sure I totally understand what you are saying. (And you may be talking in general in regards to other Christians.)
I was speaking generally, but also responding to you.
You said that you thought any attempt to explain the unknowable without some kind of logical process constitutes a fabrication. Would it be safe to say then, that you believe Hinduism is a fabrication? After all, as far as I know, there is no scientific process behind it. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your post.
Furthermore, you state that you do not believe Christianity to be a fabrication despite any scientific process. You state it is a matter of faith. So why is your faith correct and the Hindu faith false?
In my limited experience, I have found people of any one faith to regard all other faiths in a wide assortment of ways from stark raving crazy to only dogmatically misguided. That same ambiguity is how I see all religions; often times, both ends of the spectrum at the same time.
Obviously there is something to religion since so many people so strongly believe in it. It has been used for good and for bad. I even believe it is a necessary step in sentient self-awareness. And, at the same time, I think it is a scam.
You just came to mind.
Thanks! Usually, when I'm at work, I only come to mind when people want a lousy job done...
|
|
I was speaking generally, but also responding to you.
You said that you thought any attempt to explain the unknowable without some kind of logical process constitutes a fabrication. Would it be safe to say then, that you believe Hinduism is a fabrication? After all, as far as I know, there is no scientific process behind it. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your post.
Furthermore, you state that you do not believe Christianity to be a fabrication despite any scientific process. You state it is a matter of faith. So why is your faith correct and the Hindu faith false?
Really good point. The short answer, is "it depends".
I do not know enough about Hinduism to to say well how I feel about it.
I believe that Islam was not a "fabrication" as I explained above.
There are certainly religions that I do feel are more of a "fabrication" than others. (But in the interest of remaining "civil" I'll refrain from listing.)
But more to the point, I was trying to say that I fully understand why you (and others) would feel that Christianity (or perhaps any religion?) ultimately is a "fabrication". And that makes sense. I feel like it's interesting that there is actually surprisingly little "fabrication" in Christianity. There is "God", and possibly "Heaven" and "Hell" and "Demons" and "Angels". But most of those are talked about more as an afterthought as opposed to something like "Angels try and push the sun up in the sky and try to keep it there, but then demons end up taking it down with them on the other side." It's more like "There is a 'sun' and God put it there. We don't know how or why, but it works and we're good with that." I mean that the angels weren't fabricated to explain how something works.
After thinking about it, for me, a lot of it has to do with "why". Why is there a "heaven" in the Bible? If it truly was "fabricated", then I feel it must explain something or have some alterior motive. So looking at the Bible, I'm not sure what it could possibly "explain". It has little to no bearing on life on earth. It doesn't cause the sun to rise, rain to fall, or volcanoes to erupt. It doesn't make trees grow, births to fail, or anything else that I can imagine. It doesn't "explain" anything. So, if it still is a fabrication, then it must have had some kind of alterior motive. And I can see that -- except that for the most part, "heaven" is talked about VERY little in the Old Testament, which is where I would expect it to have the most impact. Kind of a reverse boogie man. "If you are really good and follow all ten commandments, and all the rest of the Law, then you will go to heaven". Except that it isn't there. (Most of the time, when the Old Testament refers to the "heavens" it is talking about the sky/stars/moon/sun/etc. and not and other-dimensional place where our souls end up.) Which then takes us to the New Testament where most of the discussion around "heaven" is Jesus telling everyone else that they don't "get it". So it doesn't follow the ideas that I have for what a "fabrication" would be. I'm not saying that it isn't a fabrication -- just that I don't believe that it is.
(That was a longer explanation than I was expecting.)
I apologize if this comes off as terse or as an attack. Once again, Moff, you say that in order to remain civil you refuse to call out religions you think are bunk. Yet, we atheists are expected to remain civil when we voice our opinions on your religion. If we have to come out and then defend our stance, I think it only fair you be made to do the same.
You see there being little fabrication but I see god as a fabrication. A pretty big one. And yes, Christianity does try to explain why. Because there is a god. It is an explanation. It works really well too when confronted with those other pesky questions you do not have answers for. "God works in mysterious ways." Translation, "I have no idea. Stop bothering me kid. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Actually, it seems to me demons were fabricated to explain diseases since early man had no idea how diseases really worked. I mean, did Jesus heal anyone without casting out a demon?
Why would the Bible have been fabricated? What was the ulterior motive? Control. Why do you think only priest were allowed in the holy of holies? Whenever I read Paul, I see a man pushing his own agenda through Jesus.
Do you tithe, Moff?
Why would the Bible have been fabricated? What was the ulterior motive? Control. Why do you think only priest were allowed in the holy of holies? Whenever I read Paul, I see a man pushing his own agenda through Jesus.
That's what I see when I read the Gospels, to be honest. Doesn't help that they postdate Paul by a bit.
|
|
I apologize if this comes off as terse or as an attack. Once again, Moff, you say that in order to remain civil you refuse to call out religions you think are bunk. Yet, we atheists are expected to remain civil when we voice our opinions on your religion. If we have to come out and then defend our stance, I think it only fair you be made to do the same.
Ok, I feel that Mormonism is more of a fabrication because its origins surrounding Joseph Smith.
Buddhism is different because it is difficult to pin down a particular doctrine that absolutely defines it. In addition, more than most religions, it seems to be more of "take what you want out of it". So depending on how deep or what branch will determine how much appears to be a "fabrication".My knowledge of other religions is a little more limited so it's hard for me to comment.
You see there being little fabrication but I see god as a fabrication. A pretty big one. And yes, Christianity does try to explain why. Because there is a god. It is an explanation. It works really well too when confronted with those other pesky questions you do not have answers for. "God works in mysterious ways." Translation, "I have no idea. Stop bothering me kid. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
The only thing that I know of in the Bible that uses "God" to explain anything is Genesis 1. Outside of that, "God" isn't used to "explain" anything. Now, Christians might try and use "God" to explain things one way or the other, but that isn't really Biblical to my knowledge.
Actually, it seems to me demons were fabricated to explain diseases since early man had no idea how diseases really worked. I mean, did Jesus heal anyone without casting out a demon?
First of all, demons are very rarely used to explain illness or sickness in the Bible. Again, that may be from other sources, but it isn't really Biblical. As far as Jesus healing by casting out demons -- do a search. I know of only one off the top my head -- the demon "Legion" who Jesus told to go into a herd of swine. My wife looked up some more and found another reference to a demon that was cast out of a person who was "demon possessed and mute" and one more that was "demon possessed and blind and mute". (Matthew 12, Luke 9) Matthew 15 has a boy that the disciples could not cure/cast out the demon and it took Jesus to do it. Luke 4 talks about casting out a demon -- but the victim didn't really show any signs of illness or sickness. These are pretty much the only specific instances where Jesus cast out a demon to cure people. Most healing that I remember in the Bible are things like Jesus spitting on the ground to make mud and put it on a guy's eyes and told him to was and he could see. Healing leaprosy is mentioned often without mention of demon possession. There's the time when people cut a whole in a roof and told a person who was paralyzed to get up and walk. A woman touched Jesus' cloak and was healed. There just seemed to be far more instances where Jesus healed someone without referencing demons at all. And often times, when there is an exorcism, there seems to be a conversation with the demon in question (except for the mute victims) which implies more than just a disease.
So, basically, "yes -- Jesus healed many people without casting out demons".
Why would the Bible have been fabricated? What was the ulterior motive? Control. Why do you think only priest were allowed in the holy of holies? Whenever I read Paul, I see a man pushing his own agenda through Jesus.
While "control" would make sense, I don't really see that in the Bible. Priests in the Old Testament had a lot of responsibility but not much control. After all, they weren't the ones that came up with the Law -- that was Moses. They didn't forgive sins. The Law might have been set up for control -- but the Law has little to do with "God" and so I'm not sure how or why the two had to be put together. Jesus certainly didn't seem to try and "control" anyone. And I see that Paul's "agenda" is basically trying to use the old Law to justify Gentiles being part of God's chosen people.
The Law might have been used for "control" -- but that isn't the whole religion. Most societies need some form of "law" just to function. I don't find that all that unusual. And, again, Jesus came in and basically said that while the law was a good thing, the people lost sight of its real purpose.
People keep talking about "control" as though it's obvious -- but control to who? You would think it would be the priesthood, but they really don't have any true power and they're not the ones in charge. It was set up long before there was a "king" so it wasn't set up by a king for control or to give control to a king. "Control" implies that the "control" is given to someone or someone has "control" but strictly Biblically speaking, that doesn't seem to be the case. Christianity or even Judaism wasn't set up to give "control" to anyone.
|
|
Why would the Bible have been fabricated? What was the ulterior motive? Control. Why do you think only priest were allowed in the holy of holies? Whenever I read Paul, I see a man pushing his own agenda through Jesus.That's what I see when I read the Gospels, to be honest. Doesn't help that they postdate Paul by a bit.
Seriously -- giving control to who? Or why? Jesus? He was dead (or taken up to heaven). The 12 disciples? They were largely dead or dying by the point they were probably written. What were they controlling? Who were they giving control to? The Catholic Church was still a long way from coming to be. What or who do you think the gospels were trying to control?
|
|
Why would the Bible have been fabricated? What was the ulterior motive? Control. Why do you think only priest were allowed in the holy of holies?
The whole Bible is so much more than this. A few people here have said that they believe that the Bible is little more than "Fables". Assuming that is true, what "control" is happening with the "Fables"? We are controlling the masses by telling stories about who their great great great great great great great great great granddad is. We are controlling people by writing songs. We are controlling people by telling stories about how we as a people screwed up time and time again -- as if that was going to make a difference as they did it again. Controlling people with a love story. Seriously?
And then the whole Bible was fabricated -- by who? The whole nation of Israel? They created and fabricated the whole Bible to control -- themselves? Throughout different periods of time? Maybe it was fabricated by individuals who wanted control -- like Moses who had so much control he was denied access to the promised land.
I just don't get it. Because the Bible was written by so many people over such a great length of time, I don't see how "control" was part of it. Individuals might use bits of the Bible for control, but that could be said for just about anything -- like the Constitution -- but that wasn't why or how it was written. Perhaps much of the Old Testament was written to help keep them from repeating the mistakes of the past -- yet they still made the same mistakes. So if it was set up to use as "control", it failed miserably -- and then they wrote about it.
Seriously -- giving control to who? Or why?
Those who speak for Jesus, naturally. He's safely dead, so he's in no position to contradict them. The more they puff up Jesus, the more neat things they ascribe to him, the more their own authority is enhanced. This has the added benefit of allowing them to ascribe wondrous deeds to him without being expected to replicate them. Miracle stories about safely-dead founder figures serve the dual purposes of impressing those who might be considering signing up (marketing, if you will) and keeping in line those who are in the flock but might be inclined to dissent.
If it helps, shave the Christian proper nouns off and consider the stories about L. Ron Hubbard's life. Or the fellow who founded Chabad Lubavitch, which I probably just misspelled.
What were they controlling?
The flock. One another too, of course. But mostly the flock. Not that this makes them uniquely malign or something. One can have pure motives for pursuing power. I, for instance, shall deploy my army of french-speaking socialist robot ninjas to spread the word of my greatness to all humanity simply because I think every person has a fundamental right to know how awesome I am. :)
The Catholic Church was still a long way from coming to be. What or who do you think the gospels were trying to control?
The Catholic Church is just one species of religious authority. Local bishops, bishops of influential cities, bishops who presided over influential schools, independent priests and independent scholars (Somewhat later of a development than one might think. The first is probably Origen.) are all a part of the Christian story and most of them at one point or another are going to want to exert their authority, regardless of what they think of a guy in Rome (Or Alexandria, which was far more influential in the early church. The western Mediterranean was a theological backwater in every sense of the word up through the time of Augustine.) thinks about primacy. Early Christianity was fabulously disorganized, incoherent, and anarchic. The lack of one central authority didn't mean that there weren't hundreds or thousands of local authorities. You can even see traces of this in the Christian Bible, especially between those who saw Christianity as a Jewish ethnic religion and those who didn't.
Then throw on top of this that the church didn't start with four Gospels, X letters, or anything like that as a common basis on which to reach agreement if they wanted to. They are the works of competing groups vying for influence. The canonical four represent, to some degree, the work of the winning party but even after they were generally accepted what they meant remained wholly unsettled on very major points of theology. (Little, in this respect, has changed.)
|
|
Seriously -- giving control to who? Or why?Those who speak for Jesus, naturally. He's safely dead, so he's in no position to contradict them. The more they puff up Jesus, the more neat things they ascribe to him, the more their own authority is enhanced. This has the added benefit of allowing them to ascribe wondrous deeds to him without being expected to replicate them. Miracle stories about safely-dead founder figures serve the dual purposes of impressing those who might be considering signing up (marketing, if you will) and keeping in line those who are in the flock but might be inclined to dissent.
If it helps, shave the Christian proper nouns off and consider the stories about L. Ron Hubbard's life. Or the fellow who founded Chabad Lubavitch, which I probably just misspelled.
I'm still not fully understanding. I feel like I understand the concept that you are presenting, but just not the specifics in this case. For the most part, you are talking about the gospels. So we are talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- the people, not just the books. All the gospels were written long after Christ was gone. So in theory, are you saying that the gospels were written to give Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John a couple years of control? Maybe they felt like they could control something in death? The Christian movement was already going as evidenced by Paul's letters. So what additional control was given by writing the gospels? And you said that the control was given to "those who speak for Jesus". But who is that exactly? Do you really feel that the writers were writing the gospels with that in mind or do you just think that individuals have used what already existed for their own means? You are implying that the writers of the gospels very much had "control" in mind when they wrote the gospels. If that is the case, then it should be fairly clear who this control is given to -- but it isn't. If anything it is written to take control away from the priesthood -- which wasn't supposed to have that much control in the first place.
I might be more apt to see it this way if the gospels were written long before the Christian movement and the movement was caused by this -- but it wasn't. The movement was already going and they didn't seem to benefit from any form of control.
I don't know much about the two examples you gave. Hubbard's movement seems to be mostly surrounding money in one way or another -- which is a big difference. The gospels seem to make a big point that how much you give does not necessarily show how good you are. And the gospels say much more to give to the poor and those who are in need -- not the "church" or necessarily to "God". So finances really don't seem to be part of that "control" which seems to me to be one of the first things that a group or person trying to gain control would try to make clear.
Do you tithe, Moff?Yes. But honestly not as much as I should. Why?
If you do not see it here, then, to put it as several Christian posters have expressed their faith, you just don't get it.
I can not get into heaven unless I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. So, if I am not 'one of us', I am out. How can you not see 'control' there? I mean, you can not get more basic cult building than that.
|
|
I can not get into heaven unless I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. So, if I am not 'one of us', I am out. How can you not see 'control' there? I mean, you can not get more basic cult building than that.
Except that control implies that someone has control. And no one controls me. So aside from admittance into heaven (which individuals do not have control over) what is being controlled? And since the existence of heaven may or may not be valid, then if there was control, it would imply something else was actually being controlled.
Seriously -- if I'm being controlled, I'd like to know how or where. In theory, I may be duped. But I don't see how I'm being controlled to do things I wouldn't normally do anyway.
|
|
Tithing is not just monetary but also of your time and talent. It is seen as tithing to go out and do community service. This does not have to be with a particular church organization but rather useful for the community in general.
True. Most people refer to monetary tithing though. For me, part of our tithe goes directly to two different missionaries (one that works at a hospital and one that I believe works at a school) and we support World Vision to help feed a community. The rest of our monetary tithe goes to our church mostly for operating expense. While not terribly glamourous, if we don't keep up the building then we won't have a church anymore. Also, twice a year we have a meeting to let us know exactly where the money went and if I ever wanted to, I could go to the office and get the financial statement. In addition, our church "tithes". They send out 10% of their income to support other missionaries and I believe that many/most churches do something similar.
Conversion techniques
You are a sinner and you are going to hell.
We are about peace and love, but only through Jesus can you really know peace and love.
Confession. Seriously, I think they invented this one.
O.k., so they skip dietary control.
Prayers, hymns and confession of faith.
Volunteer! I mean, what could be bad about volunteering. See also missionary work.
Probably only used in 'exorcisms'
God is all powerful, all knowing and loving. How dare you question him.
Heaven. God's love.
You were a sinner, but now you belong to god.
Controlling information itself is difficult. However, you can always paint it as coming from non-believers and therefore dismiss it as heresy.
Just go to church and you will feel god's love…eventually.
Church is not exactly isolation, but certainly a 'social event'.
Jesus loves you no matter how vile you are.
Keep talking to that atheist on the forum. He will eventually feel god's love.
Our loving father above.
Don't let the Devil in.
Except that control implies that someone has control. And no one controls me.
I know that's true in your particular case, but unfortunately there are millions of "values voters" for whom it is not -- they reject evolution, health care, climate change, gay rights, and Harry Potter all in the same breath, not because they know enough about any of these things to actually form their own opinions, but because they're all part of the same neat package they're handed.
It's important to remember that this behavior is not in any way confined to social conservatives, of course; left wing-nuts have their own bizarre Internet cults and parcels of stuff that they "have" to believe and support, if they want to "belong."
Yes, I do see tithing as a form of control. Would you normally just hand money over to some random organization? Sure, you might donate to charity. Hell, I do sometimes. But you are giving money to the church because they have convinced you it is the 'right thing to do'.
I am not saying donating time or money is a bad thing. But do it on your own terms.
No one likes being controlled. People who are controlled with go through great lengths to rationalize their actions to 'prove' that they were not controlled. Just food for thought.
Now if you want me to point out the guy who is controlling you so you can beat the crap out of him…well…you got me. I can't. I would hazard that the church, which is a great, unwieldly beast exerts a great deal of influence over you. From my perspective, there is no god and Jesus is not the savior, yet the church has convinced you of this. It has convinced you to believe in things which there is no proof exists and further convinced you to rationalize this as faith. Smells like control to me.
I do not believe any one person controls the church. I do not believe any individual priest may control his parishioners, but as an accepted authority figure, he does exert an inordinate amount of influence.
Yes, I believe the gospels were written by people pushing their own agendas. You come from the perspective that they were written by the apostles, so what did they have to gain. I come at it from the perspective they were written by god knows who to give their own position within early Christianity more authority. For good or ill. It does not seem much of a stretch to believe some jew did not want to have to deal with all the laws and politics of the established priesthood, so he fabricated his own religion.
It's important to remember that this behavior is not in any way confined to social conservatives, of course; left wing-nuts have their own bizarre Internet cults and parcels of stuff that they "have" to believe and support, if they want to "belong."
That is a very good point. There are a great many things that attempt to exert control over us. And to muddle things further, there are a variety of reasons behind those things…some good…some not so good.
|
|
Lots of links to the same site...
But I loved this comment...
Keep talking to that atheist on the forum. He will eventually feel god's love.
I'm actually doing it more for me than for you.
Depending on the circumstance, most of those things are not bad all by themselves. Things like confession -- it's not always good to go through life harboring bad feelings. Volunteering -- so you're saying that it's bad to help out in the soup kitchen? To give blankets to the homeless? How dare you question him? You should sit in our church some time. I know that music can have a powerful impact -- Baptists are known for using this often. However, I really haven't seen it used for that in my circles in quite some time.
But regardless, this is specifically referencing cults much more than religion. Every one of those can be bad depending on degree. France had a huge meeting to try and clearly define a "cult" a good number of years ago. They came up with a list of items -- but when I was going through the list, many organizations could fit that mold depending on how you looked at it. Churches, Alchoholics Anonymous, Wal Mart, etc.
And I keep asking the same question. While it is generally pretty easy to tell who is benefiting from cults, you said that the Bible was written for the purpose of control. What you presented is how individuals can use the gospel (or any other media) to gain control, but I still don't see how or why you feel the Bible was written with that in mind.
|
|
Yes, I do see tithing as a form of control. Would you normally just hand money over to some random organization? Sure, you might donate to charity. Hell, I do sometimes. But you are giving money to the church because they have convinced you it is the 'right thing to do'.
The church I attend is not just "some random organization". And I don't start giving to a church until I've attended it for some time to make sure that I agree with what they are about. The missionaries I support are friends of mine. The church did not convince me that giving is the "right thing to do". I give because I like what our church is doing and would like it to continue. I give to World Vision because I agree with what they do and want to see it continue. I give to our missionaries because I agree with what they are doing and want it to continue.
|
|
Now if you want me to point out the guy who is controlling you so you can beat the crap out of him…well…you got me. I can't. I would hazard that the church, which is a great, unwieldly beast exerts a great deal of influence over you. From my perspective, there is no god and Jesus is not the savior, yet the church has convinced you of this. It has convinced you to believe in things which there is no proof exists and further convinced you to rationalize this as faith. Smells like control to me.
Ok, so let's assume that it's the "church's" fault that I am convinced that there is a God and that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. (Debatable as to whether or not it really was the church, but irrelevant for right now.) You say -- "Smells like control..." But again, control to do what? To give money to pay a pastor that makes less than me? Regardless of what I now believe, I fail to see how the church truly "controls" me in a way that is contrary to what is right anyway. I am not more "right" than you are. (I don't think I'm less "right" either.) So if my behavior is no different than it should be regardless, where is the "control"?
I guess at the very least, (Like Kirth implied) the church recently has done a pretty good job at keeping its flock stupid about some things. But, again, I don't think that was what the original writers had in mind when they wrote the gospels.
Yes, I believe the gospels were written by people pushing their own agendas. You come from the perspective that they were written by the apostles, so what did they have to gain. I come at it from the perspective they were written by god knows who to give their own position within early Christianity more authority. For good or ill. It does not seem much of a stretch to believe some jew did not want to have to deal with all the laws and politics of the established priesthood, so he fabricated his own religion.
From your point of view I might be more apt to believe that a "gentile" wrote the gospels because the gospels are much more about opening up "God" to the rest of the world than breaking away from the priests. More of a "I want in on this action". Except that, as I said before, the movement was already happening. Not sure how they got more "control" by writing the gospels after the movement was already going on.
What you presented is how individuals can use the gospel (or any other media) to gain control, but I still don't see how or why you feel the Bible was written with that in mind.
What do you think the Book of Mormon was written for and why?
O.k. Maybe that is unfair since you asked first. For me, the biggest point of the Bible is that there is a god. That is the largest assumption made throughout. I have never seen god, never heard god, never felt god that I know of. So I am faced with a decision, is there a god which my senses seem to indicate there is not, or is this book telling the truth.
When I look at other, older religions (say the Greek pantheon for example…does that predate Judism?) and the fact that they are generally accepted as fabrication I am inclined to believe the Bible is as well. There is a precedent and my own observations support this, for lack of a better word, theory.
Furthermore, most religions are mutually exclusive. They can not all be right. Therefore, there seems a very large precedent for fabrication. So which one is right or are they all fabrications? It just seems most likely they are all fabrications. My own experience supports this. This theory also easily explains any seeming contradictions in any religious text. For me, the no god theory just fits all the evidence.
Now, Moff, you said you became convinced when you witnessed an event that you could not otherwise explain. Have you really considered all other possibilities?
I would also like to point out that I specifically said, "I am not saying donating time or money is a bad thing."
|
|
Yes, I do see tithing as a form of control. Would you normally just hand money over to some random organization? Sure, you might donate to charity. Hell, I do sometimes. But you are giving money to the church because they have convinced you it is the 'right thing to do'.
For some reason this still bugs me. Is it the "church" that convinced me it's the right thing to do or is it simply the right thing to do?
You say that you sometimes give to some random charity depending on whatever. I regularly give to Covenant World Relief. It's part of the denomination that currently attend. So maybe it is the church that has convinced me. Or maybe I just agree with how they operate. They collect money that they can throughout the year(s) so that when disasters actually do happen, they are the first ones to respond because they already have the money. They were among the first ones to respond to the tsunami. They were among the first ones to respond to Haiti. They were among the first ones to respond to the Lousiana flooding. They believe that the people who are suffering need help now. Not after they can collect enough money to send their way. I agree with that concept and would like to support it on a regular basis. And I hope that I never have to tap into that resource myself.
So how much of it is the church controlling me and how much of it is my choice to support something I agree with?
The Bible was written how many years ago? Codified around A.D. 325? Is it possible its originator(s) and purpose are largely lost to history?
If you have a hang up with the word 'control' would 'influence' work better for you? It is possible your pastor has been equally influenced.
Outside of the Bible, why do you believe there is a god?
So how much of it is the church controlling me and how much of it is my choice to support something I agree with?
Why do you give to them through your church? Why not just give to them directly?
|
|
What you presented is how individuals can use the gospel (or any other media) to gain control, but I still don't see how or why you feel the Bible was written with that in mind.What do you think the Book of Mormon was written for and why?
Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. He used it (and other things/methods) to control his compound and to justify actions that the government told him he was not allowed to do. The Mormon Church has some issues with control as is evidenced by forcing their congregations to tithe 10% (by forcing access to their bank accounts) and other things like their "holy underwear". But for the most part the Mormon church has evolved quite a bit past what Joseph Smith was trying to do.
O.k. Maybe that is unfair since you asked first. For me, the biggest point of the Bible is that there is a god. That is the largest assumption made throughout. I have never seen god, never heard god, never felt god that I know of. So I am faced with a decision, is there a god which my senses seem to indicate there is not, or is this book telling the truth.
When I look at other, older religions (say the Greek pantheon for example…does that predate Judism?) and the fact that they are generally accepted as fabrication I am inclined to believe the Bible is as well. There is a precedent and my own observations support this, for lack of a better word, theory.
Furthermore, most religions are mutually exclusive. They can not all be right. Therefore, there seems a very large precedent for fabrication. So which one is right or are they all fabrications? It just seems most likely they are all fabrications. My own experience supports this. This theory also easily explains any seeming contradictions in any religious text. For me, the no god theory just fits all the evidence.
Now, Moff, you said you became convinced when you witnessed an event that you could not otherwise explain. Have you really considered all other possibilities?
I would also like to point out that I specifically said, "I am not saying donating time or money is a bad thing."
Ok, let me back up a moment. This whole discussion came about because I said that many (most?) atheists feel that the Bible is a fabrication and then I said that I don't feel that it was. I was asked "why not?" and I responded for the most part because I felt that "fabrication" implies "control" or being used to "explain" -- neither of which, I feel are found very much in the Bible. And there is a lot in the Bible. The only real "explanation" is found in one chapter in the entire Bible and "control" as near as I can tell is sorely lacking. I will freely admit that individuals will use the Bible for purposes of control, but I fail to see that it was written with that in mind.
So, I understand that I am not convincing you that the Bible is not a fabrication. That was not my intent. My intent was to explain why I don't think it is. I know that you don't believe that there is a "God" and so that the entire Bible is suspect. And that makes sense to me, but that doesn't say much about how it was written with the purpose of "control" right from the start.
I agree that many other religions were created for purposes of control. But I don't believe that the Bible was created with that in mind.
The Koran I believe is a similar example. The story behind Muhammad and the origin of the Koran is a bit "magical". But the point (if there actually is one) of the Koran seemed to be more to unite a wandering people. It talks much more about peace than it does about war. It talks much more about accepting others and the rights of women than the opposite. Yet individuals have used it toward their own ends -- and for "control". But I personally do not believe that that was the reason it was written.
|
|
So how much of it is the church controlling me and how much of it is my choice to support something I agree with?Why do you give to them through your church? Why not just give to them directly?
Give to who? Covenant World Relief? Sometimes I do. But when I don't give "directly" -- if I don't believe that the money I give to my church designated for a specific cause is actually going to that cause, then it's time for me to find another church. Do you think I should contact Covenant World Relief directly to make sure that our church is actually sending them the money they say they are sending? I could do that.
|
|
The Bible was written how many years ago? Codified around A.D. 325? Is it possible its originator(s) and purpose are largely lost to history?
If you have a hang up with the word 'control' would 'influence' work better for you? It is possible your pastor has been equally influenced.
I guess that it's possible. It just seems to me that there would be some clue that it was used that way. So much of the Bible is fun history or "fables" if you prefer. That at worst give some kind of baseline for "morality". Not necessarily "necessary", but sometimes helpful. I guess that I don't feel that the Bible's "influence" is any worse then than a parent teaching a child the difference between wrong or right. And a parent "influences" their child (in theory). Sometimes well and sometimes not so well. So if we are "influenced" to do good works (which is not a requirement for salvation) -- is that a bad thing?
Outside of the Bible, why do you believe there is a god?
I don't know that I have a good answer for that question. Two thoughts come immediately to mind. 1) Stuff here is pretty amazing. Everything from just the ability that I have to think, process things, and so on, to the complexity and diverity of life makes it difficult for me to believe that all of this happened entirely randomly by chance without any form of intelligent design (using that term loosely since it now means something other than there was intelligence behind the design). And the other thought is 2) simply because I want it to be. It's a pretty lame answer, but I'm pretty awesome. You're pretty awesome. I have a hard time accepting or believing that my only purpose on this earth is to live, make the world better for the next lot, and then die. Wanting it to be true, doesn't make it true. But if I'm wrong, then I did my best to make the world a better place for the next lot and they can then continue the cycle.
But for the most part the Mormon church has evolved quite a bit past what Joseph Smith was trying to do.
And I believe the Christian church has evolved quite a bit past what the author(s) of the New Testament was trying to do.
Ok, let me back up a moment.
It seems we are on slightly different pages.
I believe the Bible was written as a propaganda tool and to try and explain some things. I guess you could say that I do not believe the Bible was specifically written to give person or group X control over person or group Y. As a propaganda tool, I believe it was written to give some kind of authority which does suggest control. As I said earlier, for whom over whom and to what end I believe is lost to history.
Do you think I should contact Covenant World Relief directly to make sure that our church is actually sending them the money they say they are sending? I could do that.
If I say 'yes' and you did, would that be control? Influence? For good or ill? Maybe I do not fully understand the definition of tithing. It just seems very archaic to me. If you want to give, give. That someone would suggest a specific amount and when…that just starts to sound suspicious to me.
|
|
It just seems very archaic to me. If you want to give, give. That someone would suggest a specific amount and when…that just starts to sound suspicious to me.
People are selfish. I know I am. The reason for a specific amount isn't so much the specific amount but more to make sure that there is regular giving. There are always hard times. Making sure to give consistently makes it so that certain operations can continue to operate. There is the example in the gospels about the poor woman who gave very little and the rich person who gave a whole lot. It has little to do with how much.
The "if you want to give, give" -- well of course. But I would challenge you to give consistently -- not just when a disaster happens. Kirth gave a link to the Gates foundation. I don't know exactly what they are about or what they use their money for, but I can pretty much guarantee that they always could use more donations. There isn't a shortage of poverty or hardships in the world. Don't do it because the Bible says you should -- do it because it's the right thing to do.
That at worst give some kind of baseline for "morality".
As do pretty much every major world religion's sacred text. In that, I would agree with you that it is not a bad thing. Humans need laws. And we can all use a good moral compass. However, I think it is more important to delve into the 'fundamental truths' and discard all the extra baggage tacked on. By that I mean, I support 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' but have no use for having to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.
Stuff here is pretty amazing.
Is god not equally or more amazing? What intelligence designed him? If god does not require an intelligence to design him, then we have an established precedent that amazing does not require intelligence to design it.
…simply because I want it to be.
I can not argue with that. I sometimes wish I still believed as I did when I was younger. Everything was black and white and I did not have to think too hard on it. All I can say is wanting something to be true does not make it so. Otherwise, I want to believe I won the lottery.
Update from up thread: Burqa becomes focus of tense debate in Europe
|
|
And I believe the Christian church has evolved quite a bit past what the author(s) of the New Testament was trying to do.
Definitely.
I believe the Bible was written as a propaganda tool and to try and explain some things. I guess you could say that I do not believe the Bible was specifically written to give person or group X control over person or group Y. As a propaganda tool, I believe it was written to give some kind of authority which does suggest control. As I said earlier, for whom over whom and to what end I believe is lost to history.
I can see propaganda. There is certainly a fair amount of "Israel is a great nation". Of course then they would screw up and lose tremendously. If I were them, I'd have hired better PR people who didn't write about every huge mess up they did.
So you are saying that it had to be written for the purpose of control. But you don't know how, or where, or why, but only that it must have been.
So you are saying that it had to be written for the purpose of control. But you don't know how, or where, or why, but only that it must have been.
No. I believe it was. It could be all true. It could have been someone's practical joke. Maybe part of it is true (Old Testament?).
I do not claim that is the only possibility. Only that it makes more sense to me than it is entirely factual.