What's your religion?

[WanderingKnight]

My point is that the context of Genesis is a religion.

And my point is that the Genesis is a book that was written long, long ago, by actual persons who were subject to the historical whims of their time (and you also have the fact that it was translated several times throughout history, with the losses and misunderstandings that presupposes). I had that corroborated by many, many Christians in person. Hell, you have Kyuusai's (rather touching, if you'd allow me) words themselves here in this thread:

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Excellent points. And herein we see the root of most religious infighting, splits, and injustice in the world. It's outright depressing. Most people are unwilling to see the world as it is, and prefer to see the world as they interpret it.

Yes, you're free to interpret the Bible in any way you want--but there are several historical facts that are undeniable... but that don't question the existence of your god, either.

[Icehawk]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Uhh... excuse me? What exactly do you have that can help you prove that? Statistics?

Though I agree that it's not impossible for non-believers to understand what believers feel, even if they haven't ever been part of them.

I was probably jumping the gun a little. It is statistically proven and blatently obvious that the majority of humanity is raised from childhood with either some form of christian or other faith-based belief system, therefore I didnt think it would be a much of a stretch to state that possibly the majority (cant say how much of a majority) of current non-believers used to be believers at some point in their life.

[WanderingKnight]

It is statistically proven and blatently obvious

Huh? Where are the statistics? And why is it so obvious?

If you'd ask me, the majority of human beings have too many stressful and immediate things to worry about (most of which are too far away from our grasp) to sit down and pose questions about the existence of the universe and their belief system.

Either way, that's going off a tangent... but I don't think it still fulfills the question. Individual stances and developments on the matter are far too varied to track. It's not a statistically viable answer.

Though, still, I agree that a non-believer *can* understand (doesn't mean they actually do) what a believer feels... but for other reasons.

[Vexx]

Many Christians view the context of Genesis as a poetic metaphor for creation - and the "history" of the early tribe of Jews as somewhat colorfully enhanced at the least.

The context of Genesis is a religion

--- isn't quite what I meant.
Here's an example: if I use the term "rush hour", what symbolic concepts does that cause your brain to bring forth? Only within the context of a automobile-dependent society does it mean anything other than "an hour of going fast" and then only if there are poorly designed urban centers.
Another example: in the Tao Te Ching, (entirely metaphorical in ways incomprehensible without a lot of study), the concept of "change" is usually expressed with the “water” character, not the “change” character. (from the wiki

To quote from the wiki:

To the outsider, such terms in such combinations will likely seem esoteric or otherwise unintelligible. Only by learning the underlying patterns of events that are considered important in the religion or ethical or political system, would one be able to comprehend what was said. The religious text thus acts as a code book.

[monster]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

And my point is that the Genesis is a book that was written long, long ago, by actual persons who were subject to the historical whims of their time (and you also have the fact that it was translated several times throughout history, with the losses and misunderstandings that presupposes). I had that corroborated by many, many Christians in person. Hell, you have Kyuusai's (rather touching, if you'd allow me) words themselves here in this thread:



Yes, you're free to interpret the Bible in any way you want--but there are several historical facts that are undeniable... but that don't question the existence of your god, either.

It's not about being free to interpret the Bible anyway I want. Anybody can and many does that.

I just question why anybody would interpret the Garden of Eden as a metaphor for ancient Sumerian cities. Even if Genesis was written long ago, there's no reason to assign hidden meanings to everything when the writing itself doesn't hint at such things. You just believe it existed or you don't. If you do believe, hopefully because you believe in God, you should also believe that God preserves his work even through the centuries, including the Bible itself. If you don't, then it's just a myth to you. Either way, no need to see it as a metaphor of any kind.

As such, I don't see how what Kyuusai said applies here. The fact that I believe the Garden of Eden to be a real place doesn't stop me from seeing the world as it is now. Those are not really two mutually exclusive things.

[nadare]

Originally Posted by FuKkaTsUyA

The question, therefore, is more why do you need a religion than what's yours ?

Well if you ever lived in a third world country the answer is... it gives people "Hope".

To most atheist they call religion as an annoyance to their lives. But for people in these religions, it is their belief,life and their culture.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Many Christians view the context of Genesis as a poetic metaphor for creation - and the "history" of the early tribe of Jews as somewhat colorfully enhanced at the least.

See, that's what I don't understand. Why would they need to think such is the case if they believe that God in Genesis is who he says he is?

--- isn't quite what I meant.
Here's an example: if I use the term "rush hour", what symbolic concepts does that cause your brain to bring forth? Only within the context of a automobile-dependent society does it mean anything and then only if there are poorly designed urban centers.
Another example: in the Tao Te Ching, (entirely metaphorical in ways incomprehensible without a lot of study), the concept of "change" is usually expressed with the “water” character, not the “change” character. (from the wiki

To quote from the wiki:

Yes, I agree with that, but Genesis has no other context beyond religion. The Hebrew culture itself is tied to its religion.

And the Garden of Eden is not just a term, it's a setting of a story whose character was referenced later on in the Bible to be as he was, and not symbolic of anything beyond the possible use as a typology.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by james3wk

While I disagree that a God or gods literally gave these moral values to mankind, I do believe that religion (especially the assertion from the various religions that a higher power created these laws to benefit mankind) helped to spread and enforce there acceptance.

To expand on your point, regarding whether God gave morality to Man, it's useful to ask whether moral law exists outside of God. If "good" and "evil" are simply concepts that God arbitrarily declares, then these values are not particularly worth following — we'd be obeying the whims of a dictator, that's all.

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

You can't break down religion with logic. Hell I'm a reasonable person and an advocate for science and reason, but the thing is religion or faith. It's hard to discribe for me it's something you feel, you know... And hell a non-believer can hardly grasp what a believers feels.

I agree. It took a while, but I eventually accepted that describing belief to a non-believer is like trying to describe a sunset to a blind man.

Sure, it's entirely possible for the blind man to feel the beauty of the moment, particularly if the sighted man is a great story-teller. More importantly, however, I suppose it begins with trust. If you don't trust the person giving the message, then there isn't much point in listening to him.

To believe or not to believe is ultimately an individual choice. I'm only interested to see if the choice makes the individual a better person.

[Icehawk]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Huh? Where are the statistics? And why is it so obvious?

....Oh for fucks sakes.... CIA World Factbook select whatever nation in the world you want and it has detailed breakdowns of religious adherence for each one (as well as just about any other stat you could want about said nation.)

Having atleast an educated guess of the general relgious makeup of your own society to me atleast seems like something that should be pretty obvious to anyone by the time you're a legal adult. Surely you should have atleast caught a news report or something over your life about the subject and hell in the internet age with such easy and constant access to information seems even less likely that you could be as completely oblivious to the subject to the extent that you appear to be.

[WanderingKnight]

Having atleast an educated guess of the general relgious makeup of your own society to me atleast seems like something that should be pretty obvious to anyone by the time you're a legal adult.

Of course, because your own society corresponds to the whole of humanity, right? Right?!

Nothing's as obvious as it seems. Around half of the world's population lives under extreme poverty circumstances, and in those situations there's not much time to mull on the meaning of the universe, you know. Yes, perhaps they're religious... on the surface. But if you really stop to think about it, they have much more urgent needs, and thus they can't manage to form a concrete intellectual identity.

Please limit first-world societal observations to the first-world, thankyouverymuch.

[Vexx]

@Icehawk: It really depends on how you define "belief" of "adherent". The religion you are raised as a child in .... well you really haven't made a conscious choice to believe --- you're just going along uncritically with what those big people say.

As someone put it ... that isn't a Muslim child... its a child being raised by Muslim parents. At some point in its life, it will (hopefully) make a conscious decision to either continue believing in the same sect as his parents, check out other sects, put Islam on hold and check out other ideas, etc. If the nature of local life is such that there's only time to seek shelter and food.... its unlikely that deeper questions get a lot of "brain cycles".

The CIA fact book really just lists survey extrapolations of populations and doesn't really examine who is showing up to temple for socially correct purposes versus someone actually seeking spiritual guidance. And in many societies there's no separation between the culture and the religion (which makes aggressive incoming religions that much more disliked).

[Icehawk]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Of course, because your own society corresponds to the whole of humanity, right? Right?!

Nothing's as obvious as it seems. Around half of the world's population lives under extreme poverty circumstances, and in those situations there's not much time to mull on the meaning of the universe, you know.

Please limit first-world societal observations to the first-world, thankyouverymuch.

I stated that the majority of humanity is typically raised from childhood to believe in some subsect of christianity OR other faithbased system of somekind meaning any other religion. The Factbook more than backs up this claim regardless of what nation it may be, thirdworld or first world.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

To expand on your point, regarding whether God gave morality to Man, it's useful to ask whether moral law exists outside of God. If "good" and "evil" are simply concepts that God arbitrarily declares, then these values are not particularly worth following — we'd be obeying the whims of a dictator, that's all.

Completely agree. That is what makes the philosophical arguements concerning morality so interesting .

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I agree. It took a while, but I eventually accepted that describing belief to a non-believer is like trying to describe a sunset to a blind man.

Sure, it's entirely possible for the blind man to feel the beauty of the moment, particularly if the sighted man is a great story-teller. More importantly, however, I suppose it begins with trust. If you don't trust the person giving the message, then there isn't much point in listening to him.

I like your analogy, but it does not quite work. No matter the blind-man's opinion, the sun will always exist and it has always existed (arguing it's non-existence based solely on the fact that he can not see the sun is ultimately an illogical argument and unfounded since there are other ways to go about proving or disproving the existence of the sun even if you do not have eyes to see it). The sun is a "sensual" part of the physical world. It can be felt (via the heat of a summer day, or the warmth of a clear winter morning) and seen (for obvious reasons), it can be smelt (in the flowers as they unfold themselves to the sunlight) and even heard (as the birds sing in the early morning).

God, though, has to be described in physical terms (such as describing God in similes and metaphors ("God is like the Sun...")), which makes it hard to truly argue for its existence (i.e. is it God or just the wind, or the sun, or some other natural occurance that does not necessarily need a divine force), or God has to be described in emotional terms (fullfilment, etc.) which is hard to convey to others (your example of trust).

In the end, more than anything else, I can't help but think that "Belief" is self-acquired (as Vexx has mentioned), rather than taught to others, which is why it is hard to explain one's "belief" to others.

[2H-Dragon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

As someone put it ... that isn't a Muslim child... its a child being raised by Muslim parents. At some point in its life, it will (hopefully) make a conscious decision to either continue believing in the same sect as his parents, check out other sects, put Islam on hold and check out other ideas, etc. If the nature of local life is such that there's only time to seek shelter and food.... its unlikely that deeper questions get a lot of "brain cycles".

That hit close to home. I bounced back to Islam in the end, but before I went "soul searchin" I didn't even understand my own religion. For me it was an important time for me since, it made me grasp my own religion. Reading the Torah and the Bible as a muslim ain't even that bad. Eventhough we do believe the Torah and the Bible that bits a pieces of those books got changed it's interesting to see the similarities. Budism was the most interesting religion next to Islam for me, but I can't let go of Allah(swt). Why? Dunno just something I feel. O_o;;;

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by james3wk

God, though, has to be described in physical terms (such as describing God in similes and metaphors ("God is like the Sun...")), which makes it hard to truly argue for its existence (i.e. is it God or just the wind, or the sun, or some other natural occurance that does not necessarily need a divine force), or God has to be described in emotional terms (fullfilment, etc.) which is hard to convey to others (your example of trust).

All analogies and aphorisms fail at some point or another. After all, we're dealing with the inadequacies of language to describe what we truly feel.

Still, it's amusing that you contradicted and supported my analogy at the same time. I wasn't trying to argue for the existence of the "Sun", but rather to describe the difficulty of expressing personal revelation ("the beauty of the moment") to someone else who doesn't share the emotion.

I've come to my conclusions about the important things in my life through personal reflection on my experiences. It'd be impossible to convince others about why I believe what I do, not unless they attempt to see things from my perspective. Having realised this, I became aware how silly it is to bash theists for believing what they about God.

Religion, when practised properly, is about a personal relationship with whatever god or entity you believe in. Having chosen not to share that relationship, I am in no position to criticise those who do.

I can, however, evaluate the actions that result from those beliefs. And this I remind myself to do, everyday.

Originally Posted by james3wk

In the end, more than anything else, I can't help but think that "Belief" is self-acquired (as Vexx has mentioned), rather than taught to others, which is why it is hard to explain one's "belief" to others.

Which is what I've said, a few pages back.

Belief, meaning and purpose are things that an individual creates, for himself. Whether or not it corresponds to "divine purpose" is besides the point. Without purpose, there is no motivation. In which case, you'd just be wasting your one and only existence in this reality.

Of course, you could say that it's an aesthetic choice. I personally prefer to live a meaningful life than a life without purpose. In the end, that's all that matters to me. A simple choice.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by james3wk

I am not disagreeing with your points, in fact I agree with you almost a 100%, rather I specificed the philosophical discussion of morality in regards to religion as stated in FuKkaTsUyA's question of why religion is needed. Evolutionary science may be the answer (in fact it probably is the answer), but that does not dismiss the fact that philosophers and theologians have been debating for hundreds if not thousands of years morality and ethics in humanity stems directly from a God or gods. Case and point, the Israelite society was created and enforced via the use of the Noahide Laws and the Decalogue which created the foundations for their moral codes of conduct. Even the Code of Hammurabi was based around teachings derived from the religions of Marduk and Shamash (I forget which one is represented on the Codex). While I disagree that a God or gods literally gave these moral values to mankind, I do believe that religion (especially the assertion from the various religions that a higher power created these laws to benefit mankind) helped to spread and enforce there acceptance.

An interesting thought is that the religious morality brought forth by these early cultures is, in actuality, the byproduct of our evolved tendencies. I've always felt that religious morality has been an important factor in the stability of society. As advanced as we are, it isn't a necessity any longer (in some parts of the world, I should say), but, as you say, it indeed was very important at one time.

I challenge individuals to look at some of their religious 'traditions' or rules and understand them from a historical perspective, including what kinds of food to eat or certain medical practices. It could have, at one point, been for the safety of these ancient peoples, used as religion so people would follow it; ancient health and safety codes, so to speak.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

Eventhough we do believe the Torah and the Bible that bits a pieces of those books got changed it's interesting to see the similarities.

One thing I enjoy reading on is the source and preservation of religious texts.

The different books were copied so many times and spread out in so many directions that we have a pretty good idea of what the originals said and where/when inaccuracies were inserted. It's quite useful for proving and disproving claims of change.

That still doesn't stop the nonsense. Whether due to copyright protection, scholastic arrogance, or general "rebel spirit", you still see people pointing to "the oldest" or "the best" texts to defend differing collections or interpretations, despite the condition of those texts (missing pieces, fraught with errors) and their disagreement with virtually every other text.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

An interesting thought is that the religious morality brought forth by these early cultures is, in actuality, the byproduct of our evolved tendencies. I've always felt that religious morality has been an important factor in the stability of society. As advanced as we are, it isn't a necessity any longer (in some parts of the world, I should say), but, as you say, it indeed was very important at one time.

I challenge individuals to look at some of their religious 'traditions' or rules and understand them from a historical perspective, including what kinds of food to eat or certain medical practices. It could have, at one point, been for the safety of these ancient peoples, used as religion so people would follow it; ancient health and safety codes, so to speak.

Actually, those are things many religious people are very proud of.

Many Christians and Jews, for instance, recognize many of laws, rituals and prohibitions given to the Hebrews as intended to protect them through better social structure, hygiene and safer diet. That isn't really an argument against the belief of the source. As they say, "Man was not made for the Law, but the Law was made for man."

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

That still doesn't stop the nonsense. Whether due to copyright protection, scholastic arrogance, or general "rebel spirit", you still see people pointing to "the oldest" or "the best" texts to defend differing collections or interpretations, despite the condition of those texts (missing pieces, fraught with errors) and their disagreement with virtually every other text.

Strangely enough, I usually recommend the annotated New International Version of the Bible because it reaches back to the older texts and often includes multiple interpretations of a piece of text. To me, although King James is poetic (in the sense that Shakespeare sometimes sounds poetic even when saying mundane things that many people also don't understand with a lot of footnotes).... the KJV has too many "inputs" from the agendas, established lore, and social contexts of the time it was written.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Dead Sea Scrolls and other extant pieces are incorporated into 'official text' --- that should be some exciting debate

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Dead Sea Scrolls and other extant pieces are incorporated into 'official text' --- that should be some exciting debate

I have some doubt that the Dead Sea Scrolls will ever be incorporated into the known "official texts". The stories described are just different enough that they will probably be left out (ex: parts of the newly revealed story of Abraham (God explaining himself to Abraham), other historical differences in regards to the stories of Enoch and Noah, not to mention many of the minor non-canonical prophets, psalms, etc that while not necessarily contradictory of the previously known information, the new stories are just different enough that they might be simply discarded as texts from an off-shoot sect, and not official "holy" text).

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Strangely enough, I usually recommend the annotated New International Version of the Bible because it reaches back to the older texts and often includes multiple interpretations of a piece of text. To me, although King James is poetic (in the sense that Shakespeare sometimes sounds poetic even when saying mundane things that many people also don't understand with a lot of footnotes).... the KJV has too many "inputs" from the agendas, established lore, and social contexts of the time it was written.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Dead Sea Scrolls and other extant pieces are incorporated into 'official text' --- that should be some exciting debate

Don't worry, I'm not a "King James Only" nut. I do find that it preserves a certain literal "voice" of the original text in many places, but in exchange for that it loses the colloquial tone of the original. I do use it primarily for reference "to the public", but that has more to do with potential audience than anything else. It is handy to read from when other languages are involved, though, as its tendency to stick to the literal structure of the original makes reading along in different languages easier.

I used to love the New International Version for its many footnotes, but I quickly became disillusioned with it when I learned more about how it was put together. Agendas are found on any side of an issue, and the Westcott-Hort collection of text was a prime example of it: In the effort to make waves with a "better" collection than the Textus Receptus and translation than the King James version (really, ones that were controversially different and adhered to their personal theologies), it tremendously favored two particular texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, which were the oldest known texts at the time--and two of the worst (there's a lot of crap said to disparage them, but they are really pretty awful). The NIV gives extreme priority to the Westcott-Hort, to the point of ridiculousness. And, in my personal opinion, it loses the literal adherence while gaining little in terms of matching the colloquial tone, although it is more readable for modern folk.

Collection controversy makes it easy to manage new copyrights and support religious debates, though, so the W-H had a lot of influence.

Along the same lines, I tend to find that claims of conspiratorial changes in the KJV tend to be substantiated by references to the quirks of the Westcott-Hort collection.

The Dead Sea scrolls have actually had an influence! Though there has been some correlation with the Textus Receptus in certain debated portions more than some would like to admit, later versions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies collections have reflected much of the textual insight thus far given by the Dead Sea Scrolls while departing from from the less-than-accurate uniqueness of the Westcott-Hort (although that hasn't been just due to the Dead Sea scrolls). The best English translation reflecting the newer collections and other discoveries is the New American Standard Bible. It does tend to be rather literal, but cross-referencing to something such as the very vernacular New Living Translation can actually be kind of fun.

Originally Posted by james3wk

I have some doubt that the Dead Sea Scrolls will ever be incorporated into the known "official texts". The stories described are just different enough that they will probably be left out (ex: parts of the newly revealed story of Abraham (God explaining himself to Abraham), other historical differences in regards to the stories of Enoch and Noah, not to mention many of the minor non-canonical prophets, psalms, etc that while not necessarily contradictory of the previously known information, the new stories are just different enough that they might be simply discarded as texts from an off-shoot sect, and not official "holy" text).

Well, really, they aren't official at all. We have many, many old sources of various texts with all kinds of fun additions or omissions, but just being old doesn't make it right (revisionism doesn't wait for accuracy to gain mental traction, after all). We have to balance age and the location at which they were found with correlation to other texts.

Additionally, much of the content of the Dead Sea scrolls was apocryphal in nature--not part of any of the canon texts, so, interesting as it is, it wouldn't show up in a regular Bible.