Religion vs Belief in God

[theropod]

Jun 14, 2013 7:29:44 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

Jun 14, 2013 7:20:56 GMT 5 Venomous Dragon said:

Why cant buddhism be more popular amoung relgious types >.>

Buddhism is probably the least stressed religion among all. There are about 1 billion Buddhists on this planet, but even that isn't enough in my opinion.

I've met plenty of Christians and Muslims that try to shove their beliefs down your throat (not all of course, most are very good people), but I have yet to mean an extremist Buddhist.

Buddha once said: "Don't believe anything I say unless it matches with your personal experience" - I'd take that over religious dictatorship any day.

I agree. Buddism as far as I can see is the only really peaceful religion, whose believers do not force it on others or try to kill people because they don't agree with them. The others should try to be a bit more like it.

[creature386]

Christianity may not be a very peaceful religion, but where does it force you to kill people? It rather forces you to evangelize people. I don't think that is good either, but it is not the same as killing, evangelizing people often killed people of different beliefs, but the religion itself does not force you to do so. The "killing law" in the old testament is not used anymore in the new:
www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/John8

By the way, does Hinduism force you to kill people? I know that it has some crappy laws, but that does not mean that it forces people to kill each other.

[Supercommunist]

Hinduism believes in a strict caste system, that incidentally treats the lowest class like slaves or worse to this day.

[theropod]

Jun 14, 2013 19:21:01 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Christianity may not be a very peaceful religion, but where does it force you to kill people? It rather forces you to evangelize people. I don't think that is good either, but it is not the same as killing, evangelizing people often killed people of different beliefs, but the religion itself does not force you to do so. The "killing law" in the old testament is not used anymore in the new:
www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/John8

By the way, does Hinduism force you to kill people? I know that it has some crappy laws, but that does not mean that it forces people to kill each other.

I was not referring to christianity (tough I think it is among the best examples indeed!) specifically, and not talking about the religion itself, but of some of its supporters. Besides, forcing a religion upon someone or enslaving people they considered to be lesser beings (eg. African slaves in America, native americans). Of course many of the deeds done were not entirely because of religion, but it played an important part in justifying horrible things.

[creature386]

Without religion they would find another justification. I doubt religion is the main reason for having slaves and colonies. At the beginning of imperialism it maybe was, but later it was basically because of the money. Today slavery still exists and it is basically for producing cheap merchandise.

[theropod]

I guess you're right.

Still, I think the majority of religions have a very sad, violent history and have done much more bad than good.

[creature386]

Not always. Sometimes they also helped for at least some peace, at least in the 20 th century. For example the peaceful revolution in 1989 was partially supported by the church, if I got it right. In the first world war, the pope also managed to persuade Germany and the UK for this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 14, 2013 19:21:01 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Christianity may not be a very peaceful religion, but where does it force you to kill people? It rather forces you to evangelize people. I don't think that is good either, but it is not the same as killing, evangelizing people often killed people of different beliefs, but the religion itself does not force you to do so. The "killing law" in the old testament is not used anymore in the new:
www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/John8

By the way, does Hinduism force you to kill people? I know that it has some crappy laws, but that does not mean that it forces people to kill each other.

I thnk you are reading fa too much into the text as to say that all of old testament law has been abolished by a single instance where Jesus prevented its execution. In fact Jesus says:

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose"

Mathew 5:17

This is much more explicit and strongly suggests that all the horrendous injustices against human decency of the old testament are not only still in place, but important. This of course includes numerous laws requiring the death penalty for many arbitrary offenses.

[creature386]

Why is this more explicit? It did not specify the killing laws. It could be that simply the 10 commandments are meant by this. This is quite likely, because if we read on in Mathew 5, we can see quite explicit laws and these would rather fit to the 10 commandments than to the other rules. Here an example (no. 21):
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’"
This would fit much better to the commandments than to the other laws, as it is against murdering.
Another example (same page, 38-42):
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
This wouldn't fit to the revenge rules of the old testament.

P.S. From my experience, for interpreting a verse correctly, the context is the best method, as single verses are rarely precisely formulated (probably because Hebrew is very difficult to translate).

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 15, 2013 1:40:47 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Why is this more explicit? It did not specify the killing laws. It could be that simply the 10 commandments are meant by this. This is quite likely, because if we read on in Mathew 5, we can see quite explicit laws and these would rather fit to the 10 commandments than to the other rules. Here an example (no. 21):
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’"
This would fit much better to the commandments than to the other laws, as it is against murdering.
Another example (same page, 38-42):
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
This wouldn't fit to the revenge rules of the old testament.

P.S. From my experience, for interpreting a verse correctly, the context is the best method, as single verses are rarely precisely formulated (probably because Hebrew is very difficult to translate).

Don't know where to start.

First there are no 10 commandments in the bible. There is a list in exodus, but it does not have ten elements. This a christian fabrication. I am struggling to see why John 5 has anything specific to say about the laws in the old testament. This is why I find it nonexplicit. It is one instance where Jesus saves a woman from punishment. This does not mean that he is against this punishment on other occasions or most importantly other punishment. The scene is irrelevant and he says nthing about the old testament laws that would suggest they are abolished.

On the other hand My verse references the laws of Moses, in the translation I used but most translations use prophets: biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

This indicates that more than just the commandments in exodus are meant.

you cite:
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’"

Murder is something different than killing someone in accordance with god's law. Murder is killing outside the law.

yu cite
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."

This is just horrible advice that will increase suffering on earth by multitudes if followed. Jesus is one of the worst guidelines to behavior that have ever been taking seriously. I am talking not about revenge but about punishment/killing in the name of the hebrew war god. These are very different. If said god also makes very impractical advice on how to tread others this is no problem for my position. We can take it very safely that the Jesus persona is still very evil. Just read Revelations or the descriptions of the hell he has prepared for me for the simple crime of not believing in nonsense: "There is no way to salvation except through me."

PS: I have read the bible. As a result of reading it in context I think much of modern Christianity is without textual basis.

PPS: The new testament was not written in Hebrew. And the newer scholarly translations are very good.

[Life]

Jun 14, 2013 6:20:42 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

In my opinion, religion has done more bad than good. What are the majority of wars in the world today about? Yes, there's your answer. Religion would be fine if everyone could accept everyone else's views, but sadly, millions of people cannot.

Religions are not responsible for wars; people are. Wars have not just been fought for ideological reasons but also for economic and territorial gains.

Jun 14, 2013 0:43:08 GMT 5 theropod said:

That is one of the reasons I think a heaven-like "paradise" is utter BS, no offense. They would have to give me some pretty hard medication in order to keep me happy there.

Only true believers are expected to be rewarded paradise after resurrection. It is not for everybody.

[Grey]

Religion and science are perfect complements in my view. Not enemies. Bob Bakker is a deep believer as well as a paleontologist for example.

Religion and Belief in God as an entity distinguished of any cult are complements too.

[creature386]

Jun 15, 2013 3:40:20 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

I am struggling to see why John 5 has anything specific to say about the laws in the old testament. This is why I find it nonexplicit. It is one instance where Jesus saves a woman from punishment. This does not mean that he is against this punishment on other occasions or most importantly other punishment. The scene is irrelevant and he says nthing about the old testament laws that would suggest they are abolished.

I believe this is referring to the laws of the old testament, because they have mentioned it there (what means that it can be seen as a reaction to the punishment laws):

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

There are also other examples who are against killing sinners (like the parable of the lost son).

Jun 15, 2013 3:40:20 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

PS: I have read the bible. As a result of reading it in context I think much of modern Christianity is without textual basis.

Not really, the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually cites verses. It more seems like modern Christianity tries to interpret the bible. An example of the interpretation is how John Paul II has interpreted the description of the hell which you mentioned:
www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html

The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting GodÂ’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

It is debatable if they are just searching for excuses, but they are at least aware of the actual texts:

To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 15, 2013 16:08:48 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Jun 15, 2013 3:40:20 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

I am struggling to see why John 5 has anything specific to say about the laws in the old testament. This is why I find it nonexplicit. It is one instance where Jesus saves a woman from punishment. This does not mean that he is against this punishment on other occasions or most importantly other punishment. The scene is irrelevant and he says nthing about the old testament laws that would suggest they are abolished.

I believe this is referring to the laws of the old testament, because they have mentioned it there (what means that it can be seen as a reaction to the punishment laws):

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

There are also other examples who are against killing sinners (like the parable of the lost son).

Jun 15, 2013 3:40:20 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

PS: I have read the bible. As a result of reading it in context I think much of modern Christianity is without textual basis.

Not really, the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually cites verses. It more seems like modern Christianity tries to interpret the bible. An example of the interpretation is how John Paul II has interpreted the description of the hell which you mentioned:
www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html

The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting GodÂ’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

It is debatable if they are just searching for excuses, but they are at least aware of the actual texts:

To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).

Jesus makes no comment on the law's validity. He just does not directly answer the question. In the verse I quoted it seems that he still endorses old testament law. I have not read the katechism and most modern christians around me do not belief in anything resembling scripture. If the Katehism is actually a resemblance of biblical message (( i doubt it) this does not matter since most christians seem to ignore it.

I think your interpretation of the new testament is neither shared by the avid reader nor the text itself. The condition of hell is described in great detail in Mark and it seems to be a place that actually exists and the only way to heaven is through accepting the vicarious redemption jesus offers through his death. Since vicarious redemption is impossible by definition I cannot accept such an offer and will accordingly suffer.

[Vodmeister]

I have 3 questions for religious people:

1. Did God create Heaven and Hell?

2. Did God create the rules and criteria on which souls are judged by?

3. Is there any force in the universe more powerful than the will of God?

I am curiously looking forward to answers.