Designer Religion

[KennyJC]

Samcdkey: I don't see where that is relevant to obeying the scriptures as they are read.

Christianity suffered a setback with the coming of secular law and politics. As a result it is much more civil these days as anyone who perfectly obeys their holy book - their word of God - will be slung in jail.

Muslims however still enjoy many religious laws and haven't suffered the nuicance of secularism, they are pretty brutal with their religious law. You (as a moderate) are nothing more than an infidel to them.

Do you think it's right to murder someone because they have converted to another religion? Both Christianity and Islam say you must do this. I want a theist to come out and say this is wrong...

 

[superluminal]

sam,

So what you're saying is that my entire line of questioning is founded on a misunderstanding. I can accept that. I assumed that the quran and the bible were certainly much more than just philosophies to guide one through life, with conditional revelations based on circumstances specific to the times they were revealed in. Being an atheist I really don't know how a theist relates to her quran or bible. I assumed that the sacred nature of the books meant they were much more than basic guidelines.

When I hear people talk about these books being the unmistakable word of god, you'll forgive a poor atheist for assuming the monumental nature of such a thing and what it might imply for a theist.

What I'm hearing is that in actuality, a modern, enlightened theist understands that these books are not really the word of god, but more the intentions of god as transmitted through his prophets. Yes?

Such that when a verse tells me to kill unbelievers (as LG pointed out) I need to interpret it in a poetic fashion, as in "kill them with holy words of truth". But when a verse tells me to be kind to strangers, it is meant simply and literally.

Sorry, but I find this to be intellectually dishonest. LG and sam, I am not happy with you. I shouldn't have to figure all of the above out for myself. I'm just an atheist. And I find these answers unsatisfying.

 

[S.A.M.]

LG and sam, I am not happy with you. I shouldn't have to figure all of the above out for myself.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way; unfortunately I have no easy answers for you. I doubt you were expecting them anyway.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

My old English teacher told us that meaning is determined by the author and it is up to us to figure it out. I think theists have taken this as their battle cry. Only one question remains, is God the author?

 

[superluminal]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way; unfortunately I have no easy answers for you. I doubt you were expecting them anyway.

You're right, I wasn't. To be honest, I'm pretty certain of the real answers already. I suppose I was hoping for something a bit different, but I really can't imagine how any believer could answer much differently than you nice folks already have. Thanks!

****************************
THIS THREAD FOR SALE BY OWNER

Good condition. Lots of possibilities
for the creative remodeler! Priced to
sell.
****************************

 

[lightgigantic]

When I hear people talk about these books being the unmistakable word of god, you'll forgive a poor atheist for assuming the monumental nature of such a thing and what it might imply for a theist.

What I'm hearing is that in actuality, a modern, enlightened theist understands that these books are not really the word of god, but more the intentions of god as transmitted through his prophets. Yes?

Yes?????? I must hav e given you the wrong impression

Such that when a verse tells me to kill unbelievers (as LG pointed out) I need to interpret it in a poetic fashion, as in "kill them with holy words of truth". But when a verse tells me to be kind to strangers, it is meant simply and literally.

Actually the point is that one doesn't interpret - one accepts the interpretation of one who is qualified - and one who is qualified uses scriptural quotes to explain scripture as opposed to poetic inspiration like the artist- like for instance if a rocket scientist handed you his latest findings in a book form you wouldn't be able to see anything except sqiggles and diagrams, but in the hands of a qualified person the book of findings is non different from a rocket because they know how to apply it. In the same way scripture is non different from god.

As for scripture the vedas are quite exhaustive - in a nutshell the vedas hold that time is cyclic like seasons from spring to winter(as opposed to linear - as held by even most evolutionists) so that means the same things happen in material creation time and time again and the Vedas (sruti) are eternal - they directly emanate from god (at the beginning of each universal creation)and do not even change a single letter of sanskrit between cosmic devastations - but the Vedas is very difficult to understand (like the rocket design findings) so there are also the puranas (smrti) which are historical incidents and compilations by exalted personalities of cosmic proportions (for instance there is the Brahma Samhita which is the realisations of Brahma - the first living entity and engineer of the universe)

- and just when you started thinking you had enough books to read for the next 10 lifetimes there are commentaries by exalted sages and saints in human society on both smrti and sruti, since even the realisations of the first living entity in the universe are a bit tough going for the human mind - and all these departments of knowledge, from the vedas to the commentary on the puranas, are considered non-different from God. When the common thread is lost and one cannot see how all this information is non-different from god one ends up with the popular view that hinduism is polytheistic (just a lot of books saying a lot of different things)

Just like for the purposes of politics a diplomat is considered non different from the king he represents - and only to the degree that he represents the king - its kind of like the hierarchy of information in science - a handfull of people do an experiment, they release their finding s to the scientific community, the scientific community release it to the media and the media give it to th e guy on the street - Time magazine is only authoratative to the degree that it is in harmony with the findings of the original scientists - Now if you could imagine an edition of time magazine that could deliver whatever was lacking in your understanding to directly perceive the intentions and applications of a group of scientists that discovered something you would come close to understanding the value of scripture (to a theist of course)

 

[KennyJC]

lightgigantic: Enough of the bullshit. Just answer a simple question: Is the following passage right or wrong?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Still waiting for a theist to honestly answer this question without verbal aerobatics. No doubt many more have been too cowardly to even post in this thread at all.

 

[LiveInFaith]

The difference between theist and atheist is faith, which theist living in faith upon what they are to be faith in. The rest are the same, meaning, as thinking animals, theists also make efforts on taking things logically, as the nature of human. Kind of "bad stuff" in the scriptures, as we all may agree, still have perspectives, which some see them as "bad stuff", some see them differently.

Take for example, quran verses regarding women. One may see it as a way to undervalue women, while others see them as the way to limitate/regulate men upon treating women; which we may agree statistically that men, physically stronger than women; which men then tend to oppress. Power tends to corrupt, it needs to be regulated.

 

[LiveInFaith]

lightgigantic: Enough of the bullshit. Just answer a simple question: Is the following passage right or wrong?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Still waiting for a theist to honestly answer this question without verbal aerobatics. No doubt many more have been too cowardly to even post in this thread at all.

The main principle of Abraham religion is One God. When one is under threat against that principle, anything should be conducted to defend the principle.

 

[S.A.M.]

Its very simple; the President of a country is just a man; but he represents the country.

If you knew that your sister/brother/wife/friend were going to shoot the President of your country, what would you do?

In principle, you have to report him/her for treason; that is what the law says; and the penalty for such treason would be death.

In practice, though, would you follow the letter of the law or the spirit of it?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[KennyJC]

If you knew that your sister/brother/wife/friend were going to shoot the President of your country, what would you do?

We are talking about the word of God here, not presidents or law, or anything based in reality for that matter. Liveinfaith has just supported murder as it is stated in the Bible. The Quran is much worse, how can you ignore it?

My guess is that if you lived in some place or time without secular law, you would not be ignoring the nasty parts of the word of God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The main principle of Abraham religion is One God. When one is under threat against that principle, anything should be conducted to defend the principle.

*************
M*W: Abraham was a pantheist. He believed in many gods as did his father before him. Monotheism traditionally came out of Egypt as sun worship under the rule of the biblical Pharaoh Moses (Tuthmosis IV). Egyptian Sun worship later evolved into the One God theory of the Hebrews and even later continued evolving into Sun worship by christians as they worshipped the Sun-of-God.

 

[LiveInFaith]

As far as in the scriptures, Abraham worship One God, and preached One God.

 

[S.A.M.]

We are talking about the word of God here, not presidents or law, or anything based in reality for that matter. Liveinfaith has just supported murder as it is stated in the Bible. The Quran is much worse, how can you ignore it?

My guess is that if you lived in some place or time without secular law, you would not be ignoring the nasty parts of the word of God.

Religion is very much a reality for the people who believe in it; as the law is a reality for those who believe in it. The rules in religion are interpreted in ALL religions and they are interpreted based on the context in which they are applied. The differences in interpretation are political in origin rather than religious.

That is why over time religion adapts and changes based on the changes in society; and in every country, regardless of its religious beliefs, laws supersede the scriptures.

 

[(Q)]

Actually the point is that one doesn't interpret - one accepts the interpretation of one who is qualified - and one who is qualified uses scriptural quotes to explain scripture as opposed to poetic inspiration like the artist- like for instance if a rocket scientist handed you his latest findings in a book form you wouldn't be able to see anything except sqiggles and diagrams, but in the hands of a qualified person the book of findings is non different from a rocket because they know how to apply it. In the same way scripture is non different from god.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're trying to compare observed experimental results with invisible non-entities. The latter cannot possibly have anyone "qualified" to explain it as it is all complete assertion based on highly speculative interpretation.

 

[LiveInFaith]

We are talking about the word of God here, not presidents or law, or anything based in reality for that matter. Liveinfaith has just supported murder as it is stated in the Bible. The Quran is much worse, how can you ignore it?

My guess is that if you lived in some place or time without secular law, you would not be ignoring the nasty parts of the word of God.

Isn't it natural, when you are threated against your faith, you will commit anything? even one is willing die to defend one's faith.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're trying to compare observed experimental results with invisible non-entities. The latter cannot possibly have anyone "qualified" to explain it as it is all complete assertion based on highly speculative interpretation.

I also have my doubts. But I would really be interested to discuss the logic of this. Lately we've been having a lot of threads about the "reality" of god and how deluded theists are (and atheists, from the theists perspective). This has nothing to do with that. The tacit assumption here is, ok, fine. God is real and these are his words, as written by the great prophets and disciples of history. This is all about truth, and self deception. Logic and illogic. I'd like to get a theists views on this

Q, if you read superluminal's posting, you'll realise that the "supernatural" is assumed to be true.

 

[(Q)]

Religion is very much a reality for the people who believe in it; as the law is a reality for those who believe in it.

Unfortunately, theists don't appear to make a clear distinction between religion and laws - one is tangible. The reality of their religion is not a reality in the tangible, hence not a reality at all. That makes for a huge problem when the so-called reality of their religion begins to shape the laws of reality.

The rules in religion are interpreted in ALL religions and they are interpreted based on the context in which they are applied. The differences in interpretation are political in origin rather than religious.

That would lead one to assert that religions were perhaps created by men, since they are so easily manipulated by men, for political purposes. Would that also lead one to conclude religions were created for political purpose?

That is why over time religion adapts and changes based on the changes in society; and in every country, regardless of its religious beliefs, laws supersede the scriptures.

Changing the word of god to suit the needs of the masses? The changes in society are usually formed as a result of science, hence the word of god needs to change to suit science.

More evidence to suggest that religions were created by men, who were obviously ignorant to the yet undiscovered scientific findings.

 

[KennyJC]

That is why over time religion adapts and changes based on the changes in society; and in every country, regardless of its religious beliefs, laws supersede the scriptures.

In other words we simply edit the barbaric parts and keep the parts that are pretty.

Isn't it natural, when you are threated against your faith, you will commit anything? even one is willing die to defend one's faith.

Yes, like killing doctors who carry out abortions or flying planes into buildings. Yes, it's all very rational.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unfortunately, theists don't appear to make a clear distinction between religion and laws - one is tangible. The reality of their religion is not a reality in the tangible, hence not a reality at all. That makes for a huge problem when the so-called reality of their religion begins to shape the laws of reality.

Don't they; do theists follow the laws of the country they live in or the laws of the scriptures?

That would lead one to assert that religions were perhaps created by men, since they are so easily manipulated by men, for political purposes. Would that also lead one to conclude religions were created for political purpose?

Your conclusions are based on the premise that there is only one solution to any problem; there are many guidelines in the scriptures and based on the context in which they were revealed, we are free to ddecide what our actions should be.

e.g. it says, "thou shalt not kill" but every soldier knows that this is not an all-encompassing law.

Changing the word of god to suit the needs of the masses? The changes in society are usually formed as a result of science, hence the word of god needs to change to suit science.

The word of God is to enable us to be better human beings; we do not change it; the Quran is a philosophy with guidelines; we follow the philosophy and use the guidelines.

More evidence to suggest that religions were created by men, who were obviously ignorant to the yet undiscovered scientific findings.

Not as ignorant as you seem to think.

History of science in Islam