What will we replace religion with?

Aqueous Id said:
Not really. I was just speaking my mind as I would any other poster I'm inclined to reply to.


Most religious people I engage here aren't very interested in literary criticism of the Bible, or issues like the need to link logos to Stoics and to introduce Philo's role in shaping the Jewish thinkers of the eary Christian era, that sort of thing. You seem to be more amenable this sort of discussion, even if it wrankles you. Religious members here (some of them) tend to troll, so there's very little outlet for me to express my views on the history of mythology, the history of the Christian religion, that sort of thing. Like a lot of the folks here, I've been jaded by the rise of fundamentalism. And I still have to pinch myself when I see people coming to . . . what was the term you used? To blight the science boards? Color me naive, but I hadn't heard that term, nor such a frank admission. I really set out to see if you would expand on that, but got sidetracked with the other juicy stuff you were dishing out.



Oh I don't know. A lot of this was finished before it ever started, but we covered some interesting ground, I thought.
Click to expand...

This has been one of the better religious debates here in some time. This is in large part due to Arne, his approach is a historical one not so much a metaphysical one and this is a breath of fresh air, for me anyway.
 
Do you think, at this point in time, that there can ever be any real debate regarding the historical merit of religion?

That far back, historical conjecture has precedence over historical "fact", moreso than usual.
We know there are precedents, they don't care.

Debate is pointless in the face of belief. Always has been.
The best one can hope for is that unsubstantiated belief will die the natural death it deserves.
The problem is, and always has been, that word "unsubstantiated".
 
The Marquis said:
Do you think, at this point in time, that there can ever be any real debate regarding the historical merit of religion?

That far back, historical conjecture has precedence over historical "fact", moreso than usual.
We know there are precedents, they don't care.

Debate is pointless in the face of belief. Always has been.
The best one can hope for is that unsubstantiated belief will die the natural death it deserves.
The problem is, and always has been, that word "unsubstantiated".
Click to expand...

Understandable that you feel this way and are probably right, but there are some great history lessons as well as some future predictions in this thread that are well worth the time and effort to read.
 
The Marquis said:
"History Lessons".

Whatever do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Posts #56 and #60 have great historical tidbits in them and one lesson that should not be overlooked regarding Plato and Aristotle. What if Aristotle had been the more popularly read philosopher and not Plato? Would Christianity have ever gained a foothold?
 
I'm having trouble with #56 and #60 because I am, as per usual when I'm on here, as crissed as a pukkin ficket.
As such, having actually been called to account, I may make this my last post tonight (and I may not, because I am so terribly bored and have little else to do other than type the odd one line repudiation).
I did actually try to read them, and more, to understand what was being said, but found myself completely incapable of doing so.

I have to admit, I don't often even bother to read whats been said before when i post anything.
Reason being, and the question resulting being... why? I say this in full awareness of how terribly arrogant I am capable of being.

Did someone say something validating the existence of religion? Did someone else say something to repudiate it?
These types of arguments only serve to perpetuate the entire debate. It goes on, it goes on, it goes on. It goes on because the entire debate regarding religion perpetuates itself.

There are those of us who are done with it all.
History is only that, religion is something else. Never the twain shall meet, as they say.
Yet, having said I am "done with it all", I still feel compelled to say something about it.

I wonder why.
I ask that question only because I feel I should. In other words, I have nothing to offer anyone who still seeks answers from within the predetermined framework.
Truth be told, I don't even have anything to offer anyone who doesn't fall within that framework.

I suppose, by way of answer and in complete awareness of how contradictory it might seem to say so, I'm only here because you're all so very interesting.
I feel as if I should apologise... or something.
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
Wow! Very impressive Mr. Id. You truly are a gentleman and a scholar (Or a lady and a scholar, Ms. Id, and that's all right too). I'm pleased that you have so much respect for me and/or my views. Unlike you in my case, I really did think you were just trying to be a nuisance. My apologies. I understand now that you are also a sincere seeker of the truth. It's amazing that a non-believer would delve so deeply into the history, theology and philosophy of Christianity just to assure himself that it is wrong. Or am I mistaken in that assumption? And it's amazing that our investigations have lead us to such disparate conclusions. I have already admitted that you are more well read than I, but I feel I have read, and more importantly, experienced enough to have made up my mind on the issue of whether Jesus was exactly what He as portrayed in the Gospels claimed to be. Similarly I believe Paul's claims. You will say that these are all made up stories, but how provocative that a person we might now call The Chief Investigator for the Prosecution was literally stopped in his tracks, saw the light, and became the chief proponent of the cause he so diligently opposed. And for Paul the cross was everything. You, and Tom Paine, say it has nothing to do with religion, but it has everything to do with Christianity. The entire Old Testament was about sin, sacrifice and redemption, and its prophecies were fulfilled in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. Need I quote John 3:16 here?

Well, I know you do not accept any of this, and that's your call. I can only urge you to re-examine the data, because there is a God in His Heaven and He does care about you. So much in fact that, well, there's John 3:16 again.

Returning to what I was saying a moment ago: perhaps your delving so deeply into the history, theology and philosophy bespeaks of a yearning for something, and that goes directly back to the OP's original query. He too seems to yearn.

Well, you know my answer: Nothing needs replacing. We have the real McCoy. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
There's no data, only stories. The only instance of Roman confirmation of the story is from Josephus, but that particular passage is thought by most scholars to be a later addition, a forgery. A work of fiction can certainly contain facts, but that doesn't make it all fact. I could write a book of fiction situated in modern times, talking about modern events and locations, but that wouldn't make it all equally true. One must also acknowledge that people of that time had no particular loyalty to the hard truth, stories were intended to teach a lesson and if they had to make things up then all the better. Then we should look at the Bible itself, with it's many contradictions and multiple versions of events, and non-canonical gospels with their own versions. Maybe Jesus existed and had some new moral ideas, but most likely he simply and justifiably opposed Roman occupation and usurpation of his religion, Judaism. And like a few others of his time, paid the ultimate price. That a legend surrounding these events became it's own religion is not unique in history, we see the same thing happening today with Scientology and Mormonism.

The take away here should be that non-contemporary anecdotes are not considered reliable historical documents, and none are scientifically reliable. This kind of discussion is far from useless, as many people who were believers and read the Bible come to the conclusion that it's a bunch of superstitious nonsense and turn to reason and humanism. There is nothing in the Bible that shows any knowledge of the world and how it works beyond what people knew or might have guessed at the time. They didn't even know what stars were, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
 
The Marquis said:
If you think religion needs to be replaced with something, then you're missing the point.
Click to expand...
There is a point to be made that many of the positive and beneficial things about religion have nothing to do with the truth of it. The church as a social institution, group activities like singing and dancing, a shared narrative for linguistic convenience and social cohesion, a set of moral values that society shares and upholds, an inspiring vision for the future, bake sales. We can have all these things without the negative aspects of religion.
 
spidergoat said:
There is a point to be made that many of the positive and beneficial things about religion have nothing to do with the truth of it. The church as a social institution, group activities like singing and dancing, a shared narrative for linguistic convenience and social cohesion, a set of moral values that society shares and upholds, an inspiring vision for the future, bake sales. We can have all these things without the negative aspects of religion.
Click to expand...
Of course.

Unfortunately, the institutions themselves perpetuate the negatives. When people speak of religion having outlived its usefulness, it's this they speak of.
 
spidergoat said:
The take away here should be that non-contemporary anecdotes are not considered reliable historical documents, and none are scientifically reliable...There is nothing in the Bible that shows any knowledge of the world and how it works beyond what people knew or might have guessed at the time. They didn't even know what stars were, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Click to expand...
"The kingdom of God is consists not of words, but of power." (1 Corinthians 4;20)​

You're looking at The Bible all wrong, friend. The main character is God. He wrote it, albeit through the prophets over many generations and thousands of years. He used terminology that the prophets could understand. For instance, when John writes in Revelations that the sea will turn to blood like a dead man's, this is because God knew saying something about rising mercury levels and an influx of industrial contaminants would make no sense whatsoever to neither John nor his contemporaries.

'Scientifically reliable!?" It's obvious what temple you worship at -modern science. And that's fine for you, 21st century spidergoat that you are, but science wasn't even 'a thing' in Biblical times. You can't expect them to have mindsetss that had not been invented yet. Sure, God knows 'science' as you call it, so thoroughly that our highest 21st century tech gives Him giggling fits, but what would be the point of Him saying in Leviticus that you shouldn't marry your sister because your DNA is too close to hers and gene pools require diversification? Moses would have gone bug-eyed in bafflement and turned to Baal. What possible motive could God have in telling the ancient Hebrews what stars are, or what neutrinos are? In His infinite wisdom, He knew it would be better for humanity to work all these things out by itself. And what do you know!? Five thousand years later we've moved from square one to square three. In another couple of threads here on our beloved forum, members are discussing black holes, while in another they're discussing how Dr. Hawking, the same genius who first theorized their existence, now says they're ain't no such thing! Who knows which is correct?

God knows.
 
And returning once again to the original question: what should religion be replaced with. I've already said, "nothing." However, if you all want something simple, I will quote my very favorite Old Testament verse.

He has told you, O Man what is right. And what does The Lord require of you, but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him? -Micah 4:6
Click to expand...
If the entire Old testament was lost, and heck, the entire New Testament as well, this one second half of The Book of Micah, verse six chapter four, would be enough to sustain us, IMHO

There's your gosh-darned so-called 'Humanism' in a nutshell, eloquently stated by God through one of His holy mouthpieces.
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
There's your gosh-darned so-called 'Humanism' in a nutshell, eloquently stated by God through one of His holy mouthpieces.
Click to expand...

Actually, what's so gosh-darned hilarious is the belief God uses "holy mouthpieces". We see them standing on street corners raving all the time, eloquently, of course.,
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
And returning once again to the original question: what should religion be replaced with. I've already said, "nothing." However, if you all want something simple, I will quote my very favorite Old Testament verse.


If the entire Old testament was lost, and heck, the entire New Testament as well, this one second half of The Book of Micah, verse six chapter four, would be enough to sustain us, IMHO
He has told you, O Man what is right. And what does The Lord require of you, but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him? -Micah 4:6
Click to expand...

There's your gosh-darned so-called 'Humanism' in a nutshell, eloquently stated by God through one of His holy mouthpieces.
Click to expand...

Love justice , yet god or lord was Not just to the future of Humanity based on adam and eves actions

Which showed No mercy

Walk humbly by him ….... Humbly , absolutely not , and if I had my way I would kick this so called lord off this planet , for infinity
Click to expand...
 
(Q) said:
LOL. A bowling league offers more sense of community than your religion. The only "community" your religion supports is the one in which a single denomination out of thousands out of hundreds of religions is the community, which is not really a community at all, but instead, a tribe with an "us vs. them" group mentality, who are bigoted and hateful towards others that don't meet their narrow minded criteria. They're not there to talk about community, but instead to worship and praise their god with fear, loathing and division.
Click to expand...

Really? A bowling league that has teams of 3-5 people and is all about "us vs. them" offers an equal sense of community to a church of potentially hundreds of people? Each denomination is not completely disconnected from others, especially considering more recent interdenominational efforts, as most still uphold the same general ideology. You can also find "pockets" of any specific denomination just about anywhere, but you can only find your bowling team at your local lanes. IOW, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Social cohesion, i.e. shared ideology, is a sense of community. Bowling can only offer a sense of camaraderie.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Paine:

The Christian mythologists tell us that Christ died for the sins of the world, and that he came on Purpose to die. Would it not then have been the same if he had died of a fever or of the small pox, of old age, or of anything else?

The declaratory sentence which, they say, was passed upon Adam, in case he ate of the apple, was not, that thou shalt surely be crucified, but, thou shale surely die. The sentence was death, and not the manner of dying. Crucifixion, therefore, or any other particular manner of dying, made no part of the sentence that Adam was to suffer, and consequently, even upon their own tactic, it could make no part of the sentence that Christ was to suffer in the room of Adam. A fever would have done as well as a cross, if there was any occasion for either.

This sentence of death, which, they tell us, was thus passed upon Adam, must either have meant dying naturally, that is, ceasing to live, or have meant what these mythologists call damnation; and consequently, the act of dying on the part of Jesus Christ, must, according to their system, apply as a prevention to one or other of these two things happening to Adam and to us.

That it does not prevent our dying is evident, because we all die; and if their accounts of longevity be true, men die faster since the crucifixion than before: and with respect to the second explanation, (including with it the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute for the eternal death or damnation of all mankind,) it is impertinently representing the Creator as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a pun or a quibble upon the word death. That manufacturer of, quibbles, St. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this quibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there to be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the other who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus interlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun, has a tendency to instruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the habit without being aware of the cause.​
Click to expand...

The distinction is that Jesus made an intentional sacrifice that a natural death would not have illustrated. Paine even assumes he "came on Purpose to die", so Paine should have realized the equal importance of making that purpose clear.
 
Syne said:
The distinction is that Jesus made an intentional sacrifice that a natural death would not have illustrated. Paine even assumes he "came on Purpose to die", so Paine should have realized the equal importance of making that purpose clear.
Click to expand...

So just what did he "illustrate" by committing "suicide by cop"? That's the part of the whole Jesus myth makes the least sense. (That and the miraculous stuff.)

It is just beyond all human reason to latch on to a body of fables and myths so absurd that it can only have taken place in eons past. Today if someone made the same claims today, the xians would be wanting to call false prophets, heretic, Antichrist, con artist, delusional or worse. What made god decide to get out of the miracle business after the invention of photography, audio and video recording?

Why not just let reason replace religion? It's outlived it's usefulness, there are more rational approaches to instruct people in morals.
 
Human beings are inherently purpose driven and goal oriented and when we realize that meaning is something we make and not made for us, it can make us feel anxious. There is a feeling of freedom though, I alone am responsible for the decisions and life that I choose to lead and am not waiting on the universe or supernatural being to determine my fate.
 
quinnsong said:
Human beings are inherently purpose driven and goal oriented and when we realize that meaning is something we make and not made for us, it can make us feel anxious. There is a feeling of freedom though, I alone am responsible for the decisions and life that I choose to lead and am not waiting on the universe or supernatural being to determine my fate.
Click to expand...

"Whether you end up in Heaven or Hell isn't God's plan, it's your own." - Cowboys & Aliens (2011)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top