What is good about religion?

[Gregoire]

Or-- you can look for facts. Actually 50 million Christians believe 50 million different things about what god is and what he wants and why he killed his kid who was him because of supposed "original sin" whatever that means... And millions of Muslims have a very different belief about what god wants and what faith is for and who lives happily ever after and then there are the possible majority of the world who believe in reincarnation and so forth.

Back in the early 90's, a friend of mine went to a "Pre-Cana" class which is a marriage counseling class for those getting married in the Catholic Church. For some reason the Church allowed him to get married there, even though his wife was the only one who was Catholic.

A couple there asked the counselors about what to do after a bad experience. Both were devout Catholics who worked with disadvantaged children. Their work had convinced them that using birth control was a good idea. However, their priest told them they would burn in hell if they did this.

Oddly enough, the counselors told them the answer was to "find another priest". Thus even within the Catholic church one can find different opinions on such a basic, fundamental question.

 

[rocketdodger]

I hate to say anything that sounds elitist, but is religion so hard wired to our evolutionary history that there are just some people who just need magical thinking to get through their day?

Religion, despite what anyone claims, is not hard wired into our brains.

What is hard wired is the necessary ability to make logical inferences. Spirituality is the result of us trying to infer things about unknown causes -- nothing more. So is science. In fact, spirituality is nothing more than science that relies on very incomplete evidence.

Religion relies just as much on logical inferences as science does -- it just makes sure the process is prematurely stopped. Our natural tendancy, however, is not to stop. That is why religion includes mechanisms to force a stop before it is too late.

So if anyone talks about a "god" gene, they are (probably unknowingly) affirming our potential to get rid of the notion of god eventually. All we have to do is let our "god given" brains work like they are supposed to..

 

[JetLeg]

Jetlag, you'll be happy to know that the bible tells you exactly what a true Christian is:

http://exchristian.net/pics/bible_answers.htm

It quotes for example the fact the Jesus said that christians should be immune to any poison.

Here is my line of reasoning.

If jesus had meant that christians would be immune to any poison literally, he would have been an idiot. (That could be quickly fact-checked, and he would be denounced as a liar).

He was not an idiot.

Therefore, one should not interpret this literally.


Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

 

[Lonewulf]

If jesus had meant that christians would be immune to any poison literally, he would have been an idiot. (That could be quickly fact-checked, and he would be denounced as a liar).

Unless it was mythology, of course. Which is the position we hold.

 

[scotth]

It quotes for example the fact the Jesus said that christians should be immune to any poison.

Here is my line of reasoning.

If jesus had meant that christians would be immune to any poison literally, he would have been an idiot. (That could be quickly fact-checked, and he would be denounced as a liar).

He was not an idiot.

Therefore, one should not interpret this literally.


Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

Or he was liar, fraud, imaginary, etc.......

Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

Look, the bible is chock full of assertions that are obviously false after a simple comparison with reality. This is because it was written by ignorant humans of ages long past.

 

[scotth]

Jetlag, people claim (today) all manner of things that can be checked and reveal them as liars, and yet people still believe.

I can make a list for you of many faith healers with millions of believers between them and not a single verifiable healing to be found. The 'quick fact-checking and denouncement as a liar' method doesn't even work today, how could you expect it to work better in the past?

I can find you a 1000s of living people, today, who will witness/attest that Sathya Sai Baba can walk on water or otherwise levitate.

I can find you people today, tons of them in fact, that still believe they are immune to poison, etc, through their belief in Christ. Now, I agree with you, they are idiots. But your argument that if Jesus said anything obviously false he meant something else is completely unsupported by anything but your lame assertions.

 

[JetLeg]

Or he was liar, fraud, imaginary, etc.......

Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

Look, the bible is chock full of assertions that are obviously false after a simple comparison with reality. This is because it was written by ignorant humans of ages long past.

My point was about passages that are extremely weird if taken literally.

Moving mountains with faith is one ; being resistant to snake poison is another.

Take a guru such as Osho, or Deepak Chopra. If one of them would say that 'you can move mountains with your faith', or 'you can become resistant to snake poison', I would think that since they are not complete idiots they probably did not mean this literally. Would you not?

Same with Jesus.

Therefore, the specific criticism that is based upon taking such expressions literally is unfounded.


As to sai baba, there are people who can believe that the sai baba can walk on water. But proving the idea that he cannot walk on water is much harder (for technical reasons) than proving that one is not immune to snake poison. I have never heard of people who think that they are immune to snake poison, or do not have to use buldozers to move mountains because of their faith. Please do tell me if you know of some specific ones.

 

[scotth]

My point was about passages that are extremely weird if taken literally.

Moving mountains with faith is one ; being resistant to snake poison is another.

Take a guru such as Osho, or Deepak Chopra. If one of them would say that 'you can move mountains with your faith', or 'you can become resistant to snake poison', I would think that since they are not complete idiots they probably did not mean this literally.

Same with Jesus. Agree?

Therefore, the specific criticism that is based upon taking such expressions literally is unfounded.

No, I don't agree. Deepak, for instance, claims quite seriously that he is not aging and will live forever. He is a complete idiot and people all over the place believe him. Deepak makes other claims as well that are completely rediculous. He utterly means them.

Perhaps you would do well to get more familiar with what people really believe.

 

[JetLeg]

Where does chopra claim that he will live forever?

 

[articulett]

It quotes for example the fact the Jesus said that christians should be immune to any poison.

Here is my line of reasoning.

If jesus had meant that christians would be immune to any poison literally, he would have been an idiot. (That could be quickly fact-checked, and he would be denounced as a liar).

He was not an idiot.

Therefore, one should not interpret this literally.


Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

So who are you to judge Jesus as an idiot... maybe you don't understand the passage... why wouldn't an omniscient diety be more clear in his words of wisdom? And couldn't the same excuse apply to crazy passages in the Quo'ran.

It just sounds like you are believing the stuff you want and pretending it came from on high... and then the stuff you don't want, you just disregard. How is that different than those who believe Greek Mythology or Mormonism? You just use your "common sense" to tell you which part of the bible was a real message and which parts are idiotic? Does god know you are doing this? Why go through the trouble of writing a text if people are going to interpret it willy nilly?

Or maybe it was just written by humans...a series of mistaken people, liars, misguided, folks like all the other religions that came before and since... Maybe people are basically good and they just learn to attribute that good to god... and everything bad to not believing enough or god testing them etc.

 

[scotth]

Where does chopra claim that he will live forever?

His entire book "Grow Younger, Live Longer: 10 Steps to Reverse Aging"

The gist of the book is that you can control/stop your aging merely by wishing it so. He supports this with scientific sounding mumbo jumbo. He knows about as much about real quantum theory as my grandmother.

While discussing this book on TV recently, the interviewer said something along the lines of, "if you can stop or reverse your aging, you could effectively live forever...." Chopra answers with only "Right." And, he did specifically say that he was not aging.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not in denial about anything. I've said many times I don't like Bush and I didn't vote for him. I think you're giving Christians too much credit. They simply don't have that much power. If they did, Pat Robertson would be President.

Conservative laws that have been passed aren't proof of Bush's politics. He doesn't get to make up laws on his own. They don't get passed simply because he supports them. If you'd like to say that there are evangelical Christian elements in Congress, go ahead. I'll agree with that. You will also note that there is no Flag Burning Amendment, no national Anti-Gay Marriage Law, and abortions are still legal. If Fundamentalist Christians really had that much power in this country, these battles would not have been lost, and abortion would be illegal, gay marriage banned on a national level, and flag burning prohibited by the Constitution. It concerns me that people are willing to believe that Fundamentalists have that much power. When you say it, they believe you, and they take credit for things like getting Bush elected. They did not get George Bush elected. Non-fundies voted for Bush too, or he would not be President.

The United Methodist Church is not a fundamentalist church. George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church.

Did you miss this sentence clause: "they merely tip the center"? Because your post sure makes it look like you did.

And if I didn't make it clear already, I think it's obvious Bush has two bases. One is the fundie base and the other is the NeoCon base. They overlap but are not mutually inclusive.

I don't know which church Bush attends but I'll take your word for it. My definition of "fundie" while typically describes Evangelicals and Pentecostals, does not exclude believers of any denomination. Bush doesn't act like your average moderate churchgoer. He acts like a fundie. He said publicly he doesn't believe in evolution, he says he was "born again" and that saved him from a life of drugs. He has said he consults with God through prayer and he believes God is guiding his decisions.

If you believe God is guiding your decisions then you cannot believe you have erred and that is how Bush conducts himself. If it walks and talks like a fundie......

He doesn't get to make up laws on his own.

I don't think Bush knows that.

Text of the Bush Presidential Signing Statements, 2001-2007

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure what you mean by "all" (with the quotes), but for those who missed it or have forgotten, not all religions require myths and/or faith.

Which religions are not based on unsupportable beliefs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It quotes for example the fact the Jesus said that christians should be immune to any poison.

Here is my line of reasoning.

If jesus had meant that christians would be immune to any poison literally, he would have been an idiot. (That could be quickly fact-checked, and he would be denounced as a liar).

He was not an idiot.

Therefore, one should not interpret this literally.


Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

Yes. Since a good case can be made that Jesus is a mythical figure, it wouldn't be a stretch for the myth to have been embellished along the way or even to have started out with all sorts of supernatural claims within it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I have never heard of people who think that they are immune to snake poison, or do not have to use buldozers to move mountains because of their faith. Please do tell me if you know of some specific ones.

This book, Salvation on Sand Mountain: Snake Handling and Redemption in Southern Appalachia, is about a sect of poison tempting believers. Several have died from this practice. Many more continue doing it anyway.

Salvation on Sand Mountain is a story of snake handling and strychnine drinking, of faith healing and speaking in tongues. It is also the story of one man's search for his roots--and, in the end, of his spiritual renewal. Writer Dennis Covington came to this ecstatic form of Christianity as a reporter covering a sensational murder case; Glen Summerford, pastor of the Church of Jesus with Signs Following, had been accused of attempting to kill his wife with rattlesnakes. There, in a courtroom filled with journalists and gawking spectators, Covington felt the pull of a spirituality that was to dominate his life for the next several years. Attending Summerford's church out of curiosity, he soon forged close friendships with some of the worshippers, began attending snake-handling services throughout the South, and eventually took up snakes himself.

I have seen TV documentaries on the groups.

Interview with a snake handler.

 

[scotth]

And I grew up with this craziness.... seen it up close and personal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_Freeman

 

[Gregoire]

It quotes for example the fact the Jesus said that christians should be immune to any poison.

Here is my line of reasoning.

If jesus had meant that christians would be immune to any poison literally, he would have been an idiot. (That could be quickly fact-checked, and he would be denounced as a liar).

He was not an idiot.

Therefore, one should not interpret this literally.


Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

I don't mean to be rude, but since you asked the question......

Two problems come to mind immediately. First, if you don't interpret it "literally", than how exactly do you interpret it?

But more importantly, it is my understanding that scholars now believe that the end of Mark where this is found was actually added on to the original text. This is because: they have found different (and older) versions of Mark which don't have this ending and the style of the Greek is totally unlike the rest of Mark.

Of course, if this is the case, then there must be plenty of other of additions, changes and embellishments we know nothing about. And if this is true, why would we even consider believing any of it? Especially since contemporaneous references to Jesus and the events described in the New Testament such as the "world wide census" do not exist.

 

[Gregoire]

Religion, despite what anyone claims, is not hard wired into our brains.

What is hard wired is the necessary ability to make logical inferences. Spirituality is the result of us trying to infer things about unknown causes -- nothing more. So is science. In fact, spirituality is nothing more than science that relies on very incomplete evidence.

Religion relies just as much on logical inferences as science does -- it just makes sure the process is prematurely stopped. Our natural tendancy, however, is not to stop. That is why religion includes mechanisms to force a stop before it is too late.

So if anyone talks about a "god" gene, they are (probably unknowingly) affirming our potential to get rid of the notion of god eventually. All we have to do is let our "god given" brains work like they are supposed to..

Well said.

I am not arguing against you, I am trying to find evidence to back this up. And I am trying to answer the OP with the question of those who report they were addicted to drugs until they "got religion".

 

[Gregoire]

It seems like a lot of people report this phenomenon. I am just trying to come up with a rational explanation.

 

[JetLeg]

First, if you don't interpret it "literally", than how exactly do you interpret it?

Non-literally.

I guess that it means that faith in general is a good thing, and can prevent you from troubles.

I am not really ready to think that jesus might have been simply an idiot ; but my point is that it is not very probable that a person would say such a non-sensical thing. One should grant him the benefit of the doubt.