Think [the box] ing discussion
Theological Musings
>
Eternity - something to look forward to?
date
newest »
newest »
Carlie, I have no idea if someone named Jesus said what various Biblical texts SAY he said. Again, I point out that the versions of what he said at different times disagree with each other IN THE BIBLE so someone has the story wrong, assuming that Jesus existed, was a single person and there were a series of events and statements he made to other people that were repeated more or less accurately until someone wrote them down and others copied them.
Obviously, some things are not contradicted by various writers within the Bible (though may be by writings not picked for inclusion in the bible) and various parables/admonitions or sayings may be quoted from a common earlier source..though it is not collaborated by anything external to the Bible. One can either believe it is an attempt at narrative (other than mythmaking) or not. Then, one can choose to believe it is accurate...or the words are appropriately ascribed to the person ...or not. Then one can find things to like or be inspired by as one can from other writings by other people.
Do I believe that Jesus drove devils out of people, and accurately predicted the future>? No. Do I think he (or those who quoted him) as predicting he would come to earth again etc? No. Do I worship this person as a god who supposedly lived thousands of years ago and died in his 30's? No.
The poor and stupid behaviors or self-serving beliefs of some Christians simply proves that people use religion..and interpret it, to serve their own ends or to comfort them to think that they are loved by God despite what they many have done in their lives and to justify themselves and "glorify" themselves as important,"chosen", individually "blessed", ordained, and living lives of great heroic meaning on a stage watched by the Divine, as they define it. They do not prove that your interpretation of JC is wrong ...just that it is yet another interpretation...One does not have to be a Christian in any sense to reject that kind of thinking and behavior even if one is an atheist.
There are good people who are Christian and bad people who are Christian by their own lights...and they are likely no different than people of many other religions...or no religion at all.
My point is that your view of what it means to BE a Christian and what was said by someone who may or may not have lived around 2000 years ago and spoke Aramaic but could not /did not write anything down may differ from many other equally well-educated bible-believing and studying folk. So when you ask if someone believes what JC said, you need to be specific as to which interpretation of what someone else said he said you are referring to and of course, select which specific passages you are referring to. Also, I might mention that one can agree with certain statements ascribed to him that are also ascribed to other religious figures or philosophers or teachers in terms of say, doing unto others what you would have them do unto you..and not be a Christian.
I thought I had made it clear in my question that I understand that you do not believe Jesus actually said the things ascribed. I also thought I was specific about asking whether you believed the philosophy of doing unto others. I was not?
Carlie wrote: "I thought I had made it clear in my question that I understand that you do not believe Jesus actually said the things ascribed. I also thought I was specific about asking whether you believed the ..."You are right in suggesting that the philosophical concept "do unto others" is common among most religions. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rec... lists many, if not most. I should point out that the list includes Wicca, Native Americans, Scientology and Confucianism as well as ancient Egyptian, so my guess is that the concept originated in ancient Egypt somewhere and has been adopted by most other worldviews including atheists, secular humanists and agnostics so its relevance to Christianity is minuscule except as they borrowed the idea from their forefathers. Jesus really plays no part except as a mouthpiece for an existing idea. A nice idea, I should point out.
I agree with Eric in that. "Do unto others etc.. is indeed a nice guideline" The New Testament is a vast improvement over most of the Old Testament in terms of not justifying wholesale slaughter of those whose land was promised to "God's chosen people" (who foolishly thought their God or gods promised it or gave it to THEM!) . That old Chosen People thing is what crops up in Christian groups from time to time more obviously selfserving being coupled with current unethical behavior (like those of The Family, the fundies aforementioned) ...or with religious or political demogogues. Jesus would have been a Jew and in his day was not characterized as starting a new religion. He is quoted as discussing scripture (OT stuff) with Rabbis...
and refers to keeping the commandments or rules believed in by the religion he and his community adhered to. He justified some deviation...for example, gathering food or firewood on the sabbath to survive..etc.. so he was for pragmatic bending or reinterpreting the "keep the sabbath holy" etc.rather than stoning someone to death for violating the sabbath by such survival work.
It was his followers who began to call themselves something other than Jewish.
Thanks Eric, but I now realize any conversation about Jesus with someone who doesn't believe Jesus exists(ed) is a non-starter. This all started because I was asked why I was a Christian, and responded truthfully. But if Christ does not exist for someone then Christians do not exist, people who label themselves christian may, but followers of a non-existent christ then do not exist either.I think I now understand Wendy's point of view, at least I hope so. When I say I am christian because Christ speaks the truth, she disagrees with that because in her view, since God does not exist and Christ said we are all the children of God, then christ is a liar and the foundation of my faith is ridiculous (or the crazy swindlers who faked Christ's teachings). So it's not that my views are being attacked. Personally, if I asked someone why they were muslim and they answered that Mohammed (spelling?)speaks the truth, I wouldn't go into a tirade about there having been no mohammed and whatever is ascribed to Mohammed is a farce. But that's me and I live in a Christian dominated society. And I can completely understand why an atheist would respond that this just doesn't make sense or is untrue when it seems everyone around them is accepting a view that is so subjectively unrealistic.
Thanks, Eric for reminding us of this site and , in particular, this citation...which preceded JC by some 1600-1940 years......Now , due to finds of archeaology, various scientific dating techniques and thru knowledge gained of ancient languages, script, etc , we are better able to recognize the derivations of ideas, concepts and symbols that influenced, shaped, or were copied and incorporated into Jewish and Christian thought and religion...
Ancient Egyptian:
* "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3
from www.religioustolerance.org
Carlie,I do not know whether a man named Jesus who was called 'the Christ' existed or not. People who believe in such a person and worship him certainly exist. People believe in all sorts of things and take comfort and inspiration from them. That does not affect me one way or another.( I am more affected if those beliefs cause them to take actions which are hurtful or destructive )
Whether I believe or not that IF such a person existed, that he was a DIVINE BEING and should be considered a God and that what the BIBlE says about him must be TRUE because God inspired the Bible (which is , by the way NOT IN the Bible!) should not be of particular threat or insult to you personally.
I have no opinion on whether the JC who is known only thru descriptions and quotes in the Bible and in nonapproved gospels .....all written long after he allegedly died ...was a "liar" as you suggest I said (I did not) or a "swindler" . People tell stories. There is a long tradition of telling stories...some historical about one's family or one's clan,tribe, nation, race etc some meant to teach lessons, coach behavior, entertain etc. These stories change somewhat over time, being embellished or "improved" etc . Those who tell them or repeat them are not necessarily liars or swindlers....They may in fact believe them, themselves or are telling them to convey something they find meaningful or joyful or enriching in some way. Myths are like that....and are interesting in and of themselves. They serve a cultural purpose. If they convey an image of what it is to be a good person or an honorable person, or teach lessons of humility or other values within a culture, they are worthy of respect and study to learn about that ancient culture at least..and to understand humanity...
The Masks of God is a book by Joseph Campbell and the title says a lot.
A poet once wrote "Everything is water, if you look long enough..." All mythology and ancient stories of heroes (spiritual and more knight-like ...alike) and journeys and confronting fears, evil and achieving wisdom or grace or whatever are allegorical and inspiring in their ways and religions are ways men develop (along with myth) to describe the unknowable, the infinite or "God" or the ground of being etc..which is to say, that which we cannot really comprehend or describe at all...All are "masks of God" as JC (Joseph Campbell) would say and perhaps should not be mistaken for what they are trying to describe.....in my opinion.
Carlie wrote: "Thanks Eric, but I now realize any conversation about Jesus with someone who doesn't believe Jesus exists(ed) is a non-starter. This all started because I was asked why I was a Christian, and resp..."Whoa, back up the bus. You are drawing all sorts of assumptions that may be unwarranted. I think everyone wants the truth. Some of us want to understand the history behind an individual or a belief system. When we discover that what others proclaim to be the truth has historical roots elsewhere, isn't that relevant to finding the truth? I never intimated Jesus never existed. Do I believe he was the son of God? Nope. Too much evidence to the contrary in what He himself is reported to have said. Does that mean I should discard what I believe to be important truths that he might have proclaimed about how we might wish to treat each other? Of course, not. Does that mean there are no valid truths in other worldviews - including atheism -- of course not. It does mean that I (we) should examine ALL worldviews and philosophies but be willing to accept that worldviews are often shaped by political forces and humans.
I was not drawing assumptions about you Eric, you just entered the conversation. I completely understand your differing point of view, stated very well. I was referring to the start of this contention about Jesus whereupon I stated that I believe Jesus speaks the truth and the response I received was "Jesus isn't real", well obviously if I also believed he was not real, I would not be a Christian. I would totally understand if it was stated, "I see, but I don't think Jesus is real because of such and such". Wendy and I have had conversations (private) about our beliefs before and it was nothing like this. I really just wanted clarification of what Jesus said (or was purported to) that isn't true. But instead we went into a more ...I can't find the word...semantic? direction.And thank you Wendy, that last post was really clarifying. I do not take your beliefs offensively at all. My husband does not believe in Jesus either, and obviously it's not a threat. And I'm not suggesting that you call Jesus a swindler but that the people who falsely reported that he was divine are. But that might not have been you, I'd have to look back.
ETA: Now that I think about it, a clarification of terms would have set us right up.
Jesus = the man as described in the bible.
" I find that Jesus speaks the truth "I - self-explanatory
find - discovered for myself through theological musings
that - self explanatory
Jesus - as referred to in the Bible, a source which may be disagreeable to some but is the best we have as far as attributions and in order to have a conversation about him, must be referred to in this light.
speaks - as referred to in the Bible, specifically when quoted as "and Jesus said..."
the truth - things I wholeheartedly agree with and understand and accept as reality as for example "love your ennemy", "blessed are the peacemakers", "the greatest commandment is love", etc.
And I would wholeheartedly say your speaking the truth regarding myths when you say "If they convey an image of what it is to be a good person or an honorable person, or teach lessons of humility or other values within a culture, they are worthy of respect and study to learn about that ancient culture at least..and to understand humanity..."
Carlie,Thanks Carlie..I do believe we are communicating..
By the way, there are those who liked what the Jesus (real, composite, or made-up) of the story of Jesus as told in the NT said in terms of the way to treat people etc...but did not think he was divine or other than a man and rejected all of the fabulous claims about his life (virgin birth,miracle working, appearing after his death, etc etc)..One such person was Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist. You might find his "Jefferson Bible" interesting. TJ took the New Testament and edited down to the philosophy that he thought was useful and eliminated the mythological, fantastical parts he thought were additions borrowed from other mythologies to embellish and make Jesus into a God competitive with say Greek, Roman gods or other rival figures...
so are you using jesus as a model of living life outside of the context of myth and religion? and wendy as to the statement about greek and roman gods i found them to be much more human in behavior then a monotheistic god. not to say i follow them but their basis as a myth is much more intriguing.
I suppose I did a similar thing. Except instead of saying that Jesus' divine nature is an embellishment, I just say, it doesn't matter whether it is or not, I don't really care whether it is or not, none of that changes the fact that I am most definitely a better person for having believed in Jesus and his truth is real in my life. Arguing about whether it's ok to eat meat on Saturdays or not are a distraction from the fact that this is the truth of my life. People have the right to their perspective and I'm not all knowing so I just keep to my perspective and amend it as necessary. I think I would be remiss if I harped on someone about their belief system.I have lots of questions cause I'm naturally curious and I have a ready counterperspective in my husband.
Dana"suing"?
Greek and Roman gods and the heroes of mythology who were often sons of a god who mated with a mortal woman and had some magical or extraordinary powers or gifts etc..and some indeed were born of virgins etc..or had miraculous upbringing(Romulus and Remus , heroic founders of Rome were raised by wolves...etc..) are more comparable to mythologized Jesus etc....The angry vengeful jealous demanding God who demands praise and personal worship and who likes the smell of burning/cooking sacrificial goats, rams and the like, and in a fit of pique, wipes out nearly all life on earth,who orders that Abraham personally kill his only beloved son as a sacrifice and proof of his fealty is anthropomorphic and more like Zeus on an off day..
i agree that each person has their own perspective and follow their own belief system whether it comes from the bible or other works, i myself follow the words of notable philosophers because i found truth in them, just as you surely found truth in jesus' teachings. we may disagree on whose right and the thoughts had but again perspective. i think the only reason why others would say 'attack' religion is they think it may fundamentally hurt the way people live their lives. i myself do not like organized religion for i find it life denying, with jesus himself i find him to be the only true christian, and if one can live their life as he did that is fine, i just find myself estranged to his teachings. i do believe that people should have their own philosophies to live by, and religion compensates for most, but i think it would be better if men themselves each had a revaluation of all values with no moral laws forbidding them. again opinion.
"so are you using jesus as a model of living life outside of the context of myth and religion?"I don't really understand the question. If you mean do I like him but not believe he is divine, then no, I do believe he is divine. I don't think a mortal being could be that perfect. that's what you mean by myth right? like spirituality and other worldly stuff? Cause my definition of myth I think may be different from yours.
Outside of religion, yes. I have a rather unfavorable view of religion, i should say, organized religion...actually I should say the behavior of the religiously fanatic fringe since the behavior of the religious isn't unfavorable to me at all. The term religion just encompasses all of that and I think it needs to be divorced from its components.
But yes, I do acknowledge and recognize that there's a God and jesus (my brother) was one of his messengers. I am imperfect (to say the least) and am therefore in need of Jesus.
I don't think we would disagree on who is right. I don't like getting into those kind of disagreements regarding spiritual matters because I am fully aware of all the times I've been wrong (in less significant matters) so I'm weary of declaring that i'm right and you're wrong. Personally, I think it would be lovely if we could all be right. So that at death, believers of heaven and hell go to either place, believers of nothing go into nothing, and believers of reincarnation get reincarnated, et cetera. But it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong right now, there's no way to know.
But of course I'd much prefer that on dying, I experience that exquisite loving light those who have died and returned say they felt.
i meant the term organized religion, because jesus is fundamentally a religious figure. and on personal opinion i leave it as opinion, so you have your views and i have mine. i know that i am imperfect, but i choose to become better by means other than following jesus, for personal reasons, if you want to know why i will tell but if not o well. as to those who believe in nothing after death, i think it is better to say since we have no understanding of what happens, come what may. but then again i care much more about living and dying than of the afterlife.
"Arguments over what happens after you die ...?"A friend's little son, puzzled by wars over such things...said it best:
"Gosh, why don't they just wait and see?"
The problem is what the belief does to affect behavior in THIS life. If it motivates you to die sooner....to get to a "happy place" or to kill your family...including your little kids when you also kill yourself... as has happened all too frequently, or to earn entrance to some heavenly paradise by killing some "infidels" or flying a plane into the World trade center towers...I do not think its a good thing to believe in and those made crazy in their behavior...because they REALLY REALLY believe that ...enough to hasten their own and loved ones's deaths or kill to please their god and gain heavently paradise...
If people really beleived the next life was better than the one they are living, they would engage in mass suicide or acts of selfsacrifice for religious reasons. Depressed folk would long for death as an answer to their yearnings....
So, a taboo against suicide had to be developed to counter this...yet in some religions or sects , it is not sufficiently strong or there are loopholes or counter interpretations ...which encourage martyrdom.
i agree that beliefs can affect the behavior of people, but with any belief even personal there are always fanatic thinking in one extreme to the next. and a common response to, "If people really beleived the next life was better than the one they are living, they would engage in mass suicide or acts of selfsacrifice for religious reasons," is that god has a purpose for them and yes suicide is taboo. however, i would say that for me when i am depressed, in the non-superficial sense, that i am dissatisfied with society never life, and i do not long for death to satisfy my yearnings but rather strive to overcome my suffering. and to say that death is an answer to yearning is only one suggestion, there are many reasons why people choose suicide as an answer, but i find it is these people who love life the most.in western religion martyrdom is acceptable, but the question would be is it sacrifice if one gives up nothing for their cause, if there life is an appropriate sacrifice? an appropriate example would be from Ayn Rand (“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one)
sorry if it is condense but i do agree with rand on her aspects of selfishness, sacrifice, sanction of the victim, etc..., however i do not agree on her basis of all or nothing in terms of her philosophy, it is to tyrannical for me, no matter how rational.
The taboo on suicide is "god does not approve of it and will not let you into heaven if you kill yourself" and thus many Christian churches (like the first one..the Catholic) would not allow suicides to be buried in "hallowed ground" ..like in their church cemetaries...(segregation starts NOW!). Another taboo stopper is "god has other plans for you.(like, hey, Tool, stick around and God will use you to make a statement with or to achieve something that noone else in his tool-box can do..((sorry if my humor offends))..Yet that taboo is often countered with a "dying as a martyr" override...whether dying from being burned at the stake or tortured to death rather that denying your religious belief or dogma difference to be loyal to God or his rules as YOU interpret them. (which means the martyr believes that his eternal future is at stake and is worth more than his life).. or in a religious-terrorist attack on infidels etc where the martyr believes he is serving his God and and will be rewarded in paradise.
.
I think we are all in big trouble when we decline to take responsibility for our actions, and accept verbatim the ideas of others without applying critical thought. Doing so opens us to manipulation. In this sense, religion has been a very handy tool for those in power, or those with something to gain by controlling the population. That which is beyond reasonable proof opens up myriad opportunities for the unscrupulous to project there own agenda, presenting what are really their own wants and desires without needing justification. I think we have seen this through time, and up to the present day. Conflict in the name of religion has always been interpersonal and ethnic, staged for personal gain or group advantage, or because a cycle of violence has been initiated between groups that is then difficult to shut down. To assume rightness, in a moral and metaphysical sense, is to many very reinforcing, and justifies many otherwise unsavory acts. There can be a stifling effect of religion even in the absence of conflict. If one is sure or the workings of the universe, there is no point in further enquiry. In fact, further inquiry could be threatening, and has in the past been rigorously suppressed. It’s much better, in my opinion, to look inward to our own psychology, to try and understand our place in the world, and the reasons for our behaviors.
Geoff wrote: "I think we are all in big trouble when we decline to take responsibility for our actions, and accept verbatim the ideas of others without applying critical thought. Doing so opens us to manipulatio..."Excellent post, Geoff.
I don't see religion as the big evil idea that leads people to kill one another. I think certain people enjoy harming others and will use any tool at their disposal to justify their actions. in fact, many tools used to do good deeds can also be used to do bad deeds with the caveat that if you don't believe in good and bad then my sentence makes no sense but I have no other concise way to label such deeds.Is flying into the world trade center a terrible thing because it is done in the name of religion and dropping a bomb to target Bin laden acceptable because it is done in the name of self defense?
Not in my point of view. Violence is totally unacceptable under any circumstances for those of us who wish to emulate Jesus.
I understand why people we label terrorists feel justified in harming others just as well as I understand why my country and its allies feel justified in doing the same. The urge to harm those we feel have harmed us is natural and likely hardwired.
Could one criticize money or Nike shoes because people kill each other for them? the majority of people who use money or wear Nikes are not inspired by them to participate in violent acts just as the majority of people who use religion do not go around killing one another.
Nike is not promising eternal happiness in paradise as an incentive. Nike promoters do not go around recruiting suicide bombers and convince them to do violence by filling their heads with stuff about tennis shoes.
The two situations are not parallel. In one case a person covets (notice the term)Nike shoes or whatever, and then, in attempting to steal the coveted item, kills someone. In the other situation, people are motivated to kill to please God and earn a place in Heaven/Paradise ...either selfishly , or in their minds, unselfishly doing God/Allah's bidding as a duty of faith.
Religion is so user-friendly to such efforts to get otherwise reasonable people to do unreasonable things because it is about just accepting the basic premise that dying moves you to a different, better place, under certain circumstances and that you are justified in doing terrible things to please God...You know, like sacrificing your son on an altar to Him..(like in the OT)...or slaughtering men women and children who are not "believers" in your religion, or "saving souls" at the cost of human lives in THIS world.
Those who recruit suicide bombers are able to get their victims to "put aside reason" and appeal to their "faith" ...obviously helping them "interpret" what being faithful means and requires of them. If one wants to be faithful, and obedient to God, the invisible and inaudible, if one believes that somehow the desire of God or order of God is delivered to one, even if it seems abhorrent or crazy, one cannot question or dispute God or judge whether its a good or bad command, one is obliged to do it even if reason and ethics and common sense point away from doing it.
Obviously, that is a vulnerability for people who are religious...if that can be exploited.
If you thought JC was talking to you thru a Holy Book and directing you to sacrifice your physical body to demonstrate your faith, would you do it?You could answer," I would assume I was having a breakdown, or experiencing delusions, and get mental health counseling".
So the problem with religion is promising eternal happiness for bad behavior? I thought it promised the opposite. It's interesting that despite the incentives that religion promises for murder of innocents (I don't believe it does but I'll agree with your assessment for now), the majority of innocents are murdered not because of religion. The majority of religious people do not go nuts either. The number of people that are killed each year not related to religion far exceeds the number for religion. I just don't see transferring the blame for the actions of individuals to a philosophy or belief system. You really think if religion could be eradicated, that all violence would stop? Or even be dented significantly? As far as mental illness goes, if I believed I was being directed to commit murder or suicide by a force that I submitted myself to, of course I would do it. If you really believe that you would not do the same thing that insane people do if you were insane, you are being ignorant, and I don't mean to be offensive. Crazy people don't think to themselves, I'm crazy, I need counseling. Delusional people don't recognize their delusions as delusions, that's why it's called a delusion. The person having the delusion believes it to be reality.
Yes. Some would suggest that a person is delusional who truly believes they have a personal relationship with Jesus or God or Allah or whoever and that they believe they know what one of these entities want from them personally at any given moment.Some would suggest that having a conversation with or appealing to an invisible spirit or longdead person to help with a problem in their own life is crazy. Yet people who are considered sane in our society ...many...expect one of these invisible beings to hear their individual prayers and respond and that such beings have directed their lives , given them individual roles or purposes to fulfill, and will reward them for their behavior.
They also believe that they get "signs" or "blessings" and that dead people designated by a church as "saints" can also intervene in their behalf. It is a small step for some to believe that they are expected or asked to do a certain thing "for" God/Allah/whoever and they can otherwise appear "normal" in a society in which it is routine for people to believe in invisible spirits and miracles and ask for help from them. A unique delusion gets one labeled crazy. Having a common delusion...one that is held by a lot of people in a society,even a majority...one is given a pass...at least up until and unless one commits an act which shocks others... Even them, there are the pious religious who share that view of reality who will suggest that maybe , indeed, God or Allah was served by them appropriately.
Despite what some would suggest, if something does not derange your life such as damage relationships, cause you to lose employment, etc., it is not a disorder.Some would suggest that the belief that 90% or whatever the number is of theists of the population is delusional and yours is the only sane and reasonable concept, idea, or explanation, is a delusion.
In the US, most people profess a belief in God but they define God in various ways...Not all of those believe in a "personal god" whom they can talk to and who listens to them individually and brings them individual gifts or blessings (like Santa once a year...and like Santa, "sees when you are sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or good...etc" ). My reference is to those who believe in the personal god or gods and the personal relationship with invisible beings that interact with them in their lives etc. Surely you see the difference. I am not talking about people who are "inspired by the story of Jesus" or Buddha or Mohammed or who try to live a good and ethical life based on a philosophy they admire etc. Hopefully, we are all capable of seeing the good examples around us now or in history, or thru reading and apply that awareness to improving our own behavior and lives.
I am talking the "magic" stuff and the substitution of dogma for our own reason and consideration.
I do not think a majority vote on such matters as beliefs in the supernatural and how it works settles what is correct but simply reflects the culture and the times. Depending on the century and the culture, various things are considered real or correct or "common wisdom". To hold those views was common enough and sanctioned as normal. To believe in fairies and elves might have been considered a matter of course.... That was MY POINT, Carlie. One is considered crazy or delusional generally if one's delusion is NOT the same as most people or a sizeable number within the society. We agree there. That again was what I was saying in my last post.
I was merely pointing out that some consider it delusional to have a conversation with or to direct requests to longdead people as being delusional or nutty but that is a component of some folks' religion, for example and so in that context, its socially given a pass. This is especially true if the religion and the terms for gods or supernatural entities or phenomena are shared by the majority. Visions of Ganesh would be less accepted in the US than visions of the Virgin Mary. In India, that might be reversed.
Outside of the context of religion, such behavior would possibly suggest schizophrenia or the like. IN the context of a religion, it is allowed to be a mainstream BELIEF and the BELIEF is culturally accepted, as conventional regardless of any basis or lack thereof. However, even in a society in which most people may believe in God , oddly, not believing in God does not normally get one branded as crazy or delusional (though perhaps occasionally in the sense and context of batting back a perceived insult in a debate/discussion)" .
Obviously, the response is more a branding in terms of moral or religious judgement rather than on the mental or intellectual or rational state of the person who deviates from the norm...So the atheist is usually described on the basis of "sin" , the sin of arrogance? pride? or as immoral or somehow against Good but ...no one is accused of being delusional for NOT , for example, praying to an invisible being or talking to people long dead or asking them to save one from something.
NON-belief in those things is not seen as affirmative proof of delusion.
To draw upon some historical examples of the evolution of what is accepted as sane but has become more marked as signs (in our society) of being perhaps delusional:
Most people used to believe in witches and the evil spells caused by them were believed to sour milk or dry up a good cow or cause someone to get sick etc. The "clear-eyed" folk who dared to disbelieve such things...then, were they delusional or just of a minority opinion ...later to be validated?
By the way, I agree that a belief in getting a reward (Heaven) for good deeds ...as we define them...sometimes motivates believers to attempt to do good just as belief in Santa Claus motivates little kids to try to be good..but the tricky thing is getting "good" in good deeds well-defined and definitely not including acts like killing infidels or heretics or people who break religious laws. That definition of "good" should (I believe) be something defensible in reasonable discussion not asked to be simply taken "on faith" not subject to question.
Wendy wrote: "Dana"suing"?
Greek and Roman gods and the heroes of mythology who were often sons of a god who mated with a mortal woman and had some magical or extraordinary powers or gifts etc..and some indee..."
i would say that the monotheistic god has no connection with other mythological gods in that sense, but rather the customs and attributes of the people living of our time. sacrifices have been normal all throughout the world and do not consist as a comparison between religion, for newer religions have just built off the models of older religions to form a foothold in areas with an all ready consisting form of faith. and i have read all of works, scriptures and myths including, and as too the emotions of the gods or a singular god, one finds that the roman and greek gods were composed of a myriad of emotions, lust, sin, hatred, happiness (all human emotions); while 'God' was gifted with a mere three, jealousy, hatred, and love. i would say that as a basis of the human condition older religions are better models of man's psyche. while this monotheistic god tends to overcome the human condition by transcribing, but albeit still being bogged down by the heaviest of emotions and traits (even they could not leave this world).
Carlie wrote: "Despite what some would suggest, if something does not derange your life such as damage relationships, cause you to lose employment, etc., it is not a disorder.
Some would suggest that the belief ..." i would then agree with wendy saying, One is considered crazy or delusional generally if one's delusion is NOT the same as most people or a sizeable number within the society', and also add that when dealing with the irrational aspects of man one cannot use the basis of numbers as a guarantee towards truth, given democracy as one example and religion as another. the sheer number of believers does not strengthen or harm an argument, especially with dealing with belief one can only argue from their perspective, while at he same time acknowledging and at best understanding other perspectives. to simply claim something as delusional is biased, and as biased as we may be, to use rationality in a system that willing asks people to make a leap of faith, is appropriate but does not mean clear answers will be given. for in dealing with the unknown, one can have their perspective, but the answer will still remain unknown.
so i would say in dealing with the afterlife one should assuage the fears or beliefs, even he question of is receiving a reward (Heaven) as being acceptable for good deeds or simply faith. for without knowing of the unknown one can only deal in hypotheticals. it would be much better to deal simply with life as it is, the rational and irrational, and choose what one will value. the problem being with religion is that it often disregards this life for the next and allows and absolute dogma instead of personal valuation.
Think [the box] ing
Books mentioned in this topic
Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife (other topics)Existential Meditation (other topics)
Existential Meditation (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Mary Roach (other topics)Simon Cleveland (other topics)
So as long as God chooses me, I can rape and pillage and murder at will? Then, I am most certainly not chosen.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that God wouldn't be God if that were true. But everyone lives according to what they think is proper so, good luck to them. And someone saying Jesus says they can do this doesn't change the fact, at least for me, that Jesus did not say so and therefore remains my hero.
I'd be hard pressed to not decry someone who hates me because a killer told them that I said they could kill whoever they want when I clearly state that killing is wrong.
Wendy, you don't actually disgaree with what Jesus says in the Bible do you? Cause it's coming off like you do. Actually I should ask if you actually disagree with what Jesus is said to have said, amended and all since you don't believe he said it. I don't see how the poor behavior of your fellow human beings equates to total dismissal of a ....type of philosophy? that advocates treating others as you would like to be treated. Especially since your posts indicate that you are clearly aware that the bad actions are diammetrically opposed to said philosophy.