I have come to realize that some religious people believe something can be true only if it was originated by someone else, now dead. Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are the dead revered?
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
I do not know.
My guess is that for those that have a belief system that involves separation of spirit and matter, God is seen to be "over there" in some other place and time, rather than right here and right now. I would also guess that "spiritual" matters or information then seem more relevant or more true if they come from that far off place where god dwells and speaks.
My guess is that for those that have a belief system that involves separation of spirit and matter, God is seen to be "over there" in some other place and time, rather than right here and right now. I would also guess that "spiritual" matters or information then seem more relevant or more true if they come from that far off place where god dwells and speaks.
That is a fair answer to one aspect of belief. But when the now dead person originated his idea he was living in the present which now is past. Now people, including myself, have a difference of opinion what the Biblical Scriptures are communicating, but the new opinion does not jive with the dead man's view. The dead man's view is preferred. Why is that?
People of faith who are living now have more evidence than people of faith who have died so to me it makes more sense to reevaluate prophesy, but most people don't because they revere the dead ones. Why do people trust death?
Jeremiah 5:31
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?
Wow. The OP topic is completely not what I was expecting based on the thread title. I thought this was going to be about ancestor worship, which I have a fair deal to say about. This topic? Not so much. Don't have a clue. It strikes me as rather nonsensical.
Please, what is nonsensical? The topic, the way it is presented, or the fact that dead people's ideas carry more weight than living people's ideas?
I have my own theory about ancestor worship and what is good about it. Why not start another thread about it, in case you ever click in here again which is highly unlikely....
Last edited:
I do not take a literal interpretation of the Bible. I can only speak for myself. I do not really know why other people think what they think, or prefer what they prefer -- so I can't answer that part of your inquiry.
IMO, both the intent of the person writing something and the total understanding of the person reading that something are valid to the overall meaning and application of what is written. I think there is an argument for understanding the actual intended meaning (if that can be known) in order to really be understanding what is being communicated. I think, though, that as far as we are concerned here and now -- if it doesn't actually apply to me here and now, it may not be of any use to me.
What I find valuable in scriptures is that often stories are presented through the use of allagories, metaphors, etc. Those approaches to the presentation of ideas have a flexible quality that can lend a distilled wisdom (a nugget of truth) to application to life without become a hard and restrictive concepts used to reduce life to mere adherence to rigid rules. These pieces of wisdom are often turned into hard and restrictive concepts, and often misconstrued and/or misapplied by people. That is where I think it is incumbant upon the individual to apply their own level of wisdom, prudence and unity of understanding. Just grabbing isolated quotes (and very often applying them to other people) seems to be a waste of time and sometimes harmful.
I think it is usually appropriate to re-evaluate things from time to time.
I do not believe that prophecy is "set in stone." I think that there are people that have a deep enough sense of things (especially those understanding cause and effect) that they can rather like fast forward through cause and effect and see the most likely outcome of current situations. They may be really accurate -- provided nothing changes.
I believe that there is such a thing as free will that may be exercised via a "change of heart." I believe a change of heart establishes a new potential (like turning the steering wheel of a car.) There is still forward momentum, but the course is altered a bit.
(I'm not exactly sure how you are relating "trusting death" to the interpretation of scripture, but as a free-standing question -- I think people trust death because it is an observable certainty of life that we all seem to die.)
The bold part. The idea that a person's ideas should carry more weight simply because they're dead is nonsense. I can't see any logical reason why the status of being dead would make a person's ideas more true. Truth has nothing to do with whether or not someone is alive or dead. To claim this is as absurd to me as saying a person missing their left arm knows the truth more than people who have both arms. It's nonsense.
The only exception to this I can fathom would be knowledge of the afterlife. If, hypothetically, a dead person could really come back and tell us what it was like, then yes, the status of them being dead would logically give more weight to their testimony than someone who has never been dead. No actual dead people have ever literally returned to life to offer such testimony. Mythologically is another matter, but mythos is a somewhat different cup of tea.
I find it amusing, though, that you thought it "highly unlikely" I'd look at this thread again. I always check "my replies" when I first pop onto the forums. I do wish "my replies" was more efficient, however, because when threads progress several dozen posts after I made mine, it is quite a pain to follow the conversation. Those ones I sometimes forget about and leave alone. Too much work for me. >_>
Promoting man's commentary is what prompted the thread. Most Bible commentary that is trusted to lean on had it's beginning with men who are now dead.
"Not forsaking the gathering together as some have the custom" "Custom" in that scripture is understood "habit", is it not? I think custom at Hebrew 10:25 means what has been adopted as truth that humankind have said about scripture.
I'm not sure if I can take a post from another thread and paste it here. But in essence it says "who said so?" You?
LOL. The people who told us what the good news means are dead. Savvy?
"Not forsaking the gathering together as some have the custom" "Custom" in that scripture is understood "habit", is it not? I think custom at Hebrew 10:25 means what has been adopted as truth that humankind have said about scripture.
I'm not sure if I can take a post from another thread and paste it here. But in essence it says "who said so?" You?
LOL. The people who told us what the good news means are dead. Savvy?
My apologies; the OP was non-specific about what religion this applied to, and I didn't particularly have Bible-based religions in mind when I replied. I didn't really have religion in general in mind when I replied to this thread; it seems logically problematic to posit the state of being dead somehow imbues something with authority. It's definitely not something that comes up in my path. 
Well, it perhaps does in a roundabout way. New religious movements often like to claim roots in antiquity because there seems to be this inbuilt thing in humans that endows old things with authority. "Our ancestors did it this way, so it must be reliable and true." With this example, it is not the state of being dead that is what creates the authority; it's the state of it having worked before in the past. It's proven itself reliable, and that is what grants it truth and authority. After all, saying "I'm practicing a religion that my forefathers practiced" innately sounds more credible to most ears than "I'm practicing a religion that I make up as I go along." However, appeal to tradition/antiquity is also a logical fallacy, so we have to be careful about falling into that trap. Something being old and practiced by one's ancestors does not necessarily reflect it's truth or value.
Well, it perhaps does in a roundabout way. New religious movements often like to claim roots in antiquity because there seems to be this inbuilt thing in humans that endows old things with authority. "Our ancestors did it this way, so it must be reliable and true." With this example, it is not the state of being dead that is what creates the authority; it's the state of it having worked before in the past. It's proven itself reliable, and that is what grants it truth and authority. After all, saying "I'm practicing a religion that my forefathers practiced" innately sounds more credible to most ears than "I'm practicing a religion that I make up as I go along." However, appeal to tradition/antiquity is also a logical fallacy, so we have to be careful about falling into that trap. Something being old and practiced by one's ancestors does not necessarily reflect it's truth or value.
Ecclesiastes 7:1,2 I think applies personally. I'm talking about how people revere OTHER people, and the other people are dead.
Because people living in the modern times, who may be great or greater than great religious figures of the past, are better recorded, known and quoted. And they would be asked their position on a wide variety of controversial religious, moral and social topics. And the sides that disagree with him/her on these controversial topics would vilify this person. Nobody could possibly be positively recieved by everybody today.
We should choose our heroes with our own judgement.
Dead people can keep their mouths shut on modern controversial issues and stay liked by more people.
Shermana
Heretic
The idea is that if you can't find anyone who agrees with your view, then you're ultimately saying "Believe my way just because I said so". Like I said, if you hold a fringe position that few or even no one else has, that's fine if you can hold your position as long as you acknowledge that NO ONE ELSE agrees with you provided you can demonstrate evidence-based reasons why you are right especially when it comes to translating the Greek, and especially when you want to deny a particular translation. I showed a commentary that supported my view from LIVING people, you denied it, then I asked you if you had anyone who supported your view, of which you claimed that you didn't need any....the implication is that you feel you don't need to have any sourced material to back your claims especially when you are denying someone else's sourced claim. I don't agree that all sourced claims are correct but if you're going to bat against someone else's idea, you may want some commentary.
Also, the invitation included the option to have living commentators. When you don't want to debate or address the issues raised by others' sources and you just want to insist that you're right without the use of any evidence or sources, that's basically prosletyzing which is really only allowed on the DIRs.
So why should one believe YOUR interpretation of the scripture as opposed to a sourced view when you can't find anyone else who agrees with you? Are you claiming prophetic inspiration or are you just demanding people to conform to your view regardless of what other interpretations say? If you're going to completely ignore the commentaries of others, you can't just try to work around the fact that there are opposing views by just insisting that they're wrong.
You are welcome to link the other thread and quote me so others can see what you're talking about.
Last edited:
But don't you see the logic problem? What has become popular to believe in was once believed by only one person and it spread. Now it is considered truth. Why?
SLAMH
Active Member
Because they threaten them with eternal suffering if they don't cope with the teachings. Perhaps, if they didn't make such a threat, no one would have reverenced them with the same degree.
Shermana
Heretic
And that pretty much applies to the entire Mainstream Church now doesn't it. Like I said, I agree there are some things that almost ALL the scholars get wrong because they all blindly follow the consensus without critically examining the whole, but I do believe that one should base their interpretation on what was most likely the originally intended message. Are not your own mainstream-Protestant views based on the ideas of dead people? Do you think your view is the same one that was originally intended? So do I. So do many others. How do we know who is right?
Yes, you are right. Whenever I am in doubt I put it on the shelf. I won't be made certain one way or another.
How do I know who is right? I believe Jesus. As the Son of God it is impossible for him to lie. How do I know his words have been accurately recorded and transferred? I don't. Do you see anyone following me?
Cause they're dead celebrities. If they were able to rile people enough while living they'll no doubt leave something behind that will catch peoples attention. People are eventually heard but it takes a lot to spread the word.
I have no clue why you've come to realize this.
All religious people are such. So yes, I have "run across" many such people. I haven't run over any yet. :sarcastic
I was a Jehovah's Witness. They have a unique perspective, and there are seven million of them, or so I've heard. They all agree on interpretation that was discovered by men who are dead presently. Actually I have heard that the "faithful discreet slave" identity was discovered by one of the founders' wife. I don't know if it's true. Interesting though. I don't believe it.