Can we say organized religion is a positive force in the world with headlines like this?

[First Baseman]

I agree, but the catch to me is if you take out the literalism, the whole reason for being Christian falls apart.

The catch with Christianity is, because of Original Sin, everyone has to swear allegiance to Jesus. Only by following Jesus can you clear yourself of sin and be admitted to heaven.

If elements of this story are not literal...if Jesus wasn't actually the Son of God, and didn't actually rise from the dead, then there is no need to follow him. If we take it figuratively instead and try to embrace some of the good lessons like "turn the other cheek" or whatnot, all we are really left with are some general moral principles that one can find repeated in almost any moral system known to man. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bring harm to other, etc. You don't need Jesus to learn those things. The only thing you really need Jesus for is to save you from heaven via his dying for our sins act. If that's not literal the whole thing unwinds and Christianity loses it's power.

Christianity totally and entirely hinges on the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. If those things didn't happen there is no such thing as Christianity. You are right about that.

 

[Orbit]

I agree, but the catch to me is if you take out the literalism, the whole reason for being Christian falls apart.

The catch with Christianity is, because of Original Sin, everyone has to swear allegiance to Jesus. Only by following Jesus can you clear yourself of sin and be admitted to heaven.

If elements of this story are not literal...if Jesus wasn't actually the Son of God, and didn't actually rise from the dead, then there is no need to follow him. If we take it figuratively instead and try to embrace some of the good lessons like "turn the other cheek" or whatnot, all we are really left with are some general moral principles that one can find repeated in almost any moral system known to man. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bring harm to other, etc. You don't need Jesus to learn those things. The only thing you really need Jesus for is to save you from heaven via his dying for our sins act. If that's not literal the whole thing unwinds and Christianity loses it's power.

It would mean re-interpreting it in a non-Protestant way. There are symbolic interpretations of the Bible, and those who put the text in historical and anthropological context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think one of the main problems that leads to intolerance is Biblical literalism. If we could get rid of that, it would lead to greater tolerance.

The problem there is that a much of the Bible doesn't work non-literally. Take all the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus: it's hard to make a reasonable argument that arcane rules about fabric manufacture or livestock handling were intended to be metaphor or poetry and not as direct, literal commands about fabric and livestock.

Non-literal interpretations are fine when they work, but this isn't always the case. I think that decrying "literalism" is often used as a red herring to throw people off when the most reasonable inference of the intent of the author implies something that we now know is factually false or is abhorrent to modern morality.

For instance, why should we assume that the stuff in Genesis about "the firmament" wasn't meant literally? Just because we know now that the night sky isn't a solid dome and the stars aren't pin-pricks in it doesn't mean that the Bronze Age people who first crafted the story knew this.

Interpret non-literally when appropriate, but just make sure you're doing it in a sincere attempt to capture the author's intended meaning and not just glossing over problematic sections.

 

[Orbit]

The problem there is that a much of the Bible doesn't work non-literally. Take all the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus: it's hard to make a reasonable argument that arcane rules about fabric manufacture or livestock handling were intended to be metaphor or poetry and no as direct, literal commands about fabric and livestock.

Non-literal interpretations are fine when they work, but this isn't always the case. I think that decrying "literalism" is often used as a red herring to throw people off when the most reasonable inference of the intent of the author implies something that we now know is factually false or is abhorrent to modern morality.

For instance, why should we assume that the stuff in Genesis about "the firmament" wasn't meant literally? Just because we know now that the night sky isn't a solid dome and the stars aren't pin-pricks in it doesn't mean that the Bronze Age people who first crafted the story knew this.

Interpret non-literally when appropriate, but just make sure you're doing it in a sincere attempt to capture the author's intended meaning and not just glossing over problematic sections.

I think seeing it for the mythology that it is puts things in perspective. It's a creation myth, like any other creation myth the world over.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm glad I don't follow any of those religions. My religion:

1. Love all people, gays included.
2. Accept life saving medical treatment.
3. Default position is to trust others, until they prove me wrong.
4. Faith that God answers prayers.
5. Recognize the realities of and suffering caused by mental illness. Can tell the difference between divine inspiration and imagined experience.
6. Pro-science.
7. Not preoccupied with hell.
8. Human sexuality is a beautiful gift from God.
9. The list of great things goes on and on.

The only things an atheist can't do on this list is have "faith that God answers prayers", "tell the difference between divine inspiration and imagined experience" and an atheist would obviously never claim that sexuality (or anything for that matter) was a gift from God. I don't know how these are expected to be taken as advantages "of the religion". These are mostly just things humans can do regardless.

 

[rusra02]

Condemning non-believers is exactly the sort of intolerance that leads to serious negative problems. We don't need more of this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/

It is the Bible that reveals God's righteous judgment that false religion be destroyed, IMO. Rather than intolerant, I believe the clear, loving direction from God is "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven." (Revelation 18:4,5)

 

[Orbit]

It is the Bible that reveals God's righteous judgment that false religion be destroyed, IMO. Rather than intolerant, I believe the clear, loving direction from God is "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven." (Revelation 18:4,5)

This isn't a debate post, it's preaching.

 

[rusra02]

This thread isn't here for you to preach. It's a debate thread.

You may not agree with my views, but they are my views on the subject being discussed. Calling someone's post "preaching" because you do not like what is said is disingenuous, IMO.

 

[Orbit]

You may not agree with my views, but they are my views on the subject being discussed. Calling someone's post "preaching" because you do not like what is said is disingenuous, IMO.

Answering a post with a Bible verse is exactly what preaching is.

 

[rusra02]

Answering a post with a Bible verse is exactly what preaching is.

So, what the Bible says is off-limits and forbidden in a religious forum debate? Is that really your position?

 

[Ingledsva]

How about if we just say "equal rights for all people" instead of "equal rights for gay people"? People are people.

Denying marriage to gay people (as far as Catholics are concerned) isn't denying them their rights. They can draw up any sort of contract they want. But it isn't marriage as defined in the Holy Bible so the Catholic Church does not recognize it as such.

Marriage was always meant to be between one man and one woman as defined by Jesus. Gay people can have a union of whatever sort but it isn't marriage by definition in the eyes of the Church and scripture.

Since marriage isn't defined by the church, - BALONEY!

People all over the world were marrying long before the church came along.

Folks like you don't have a right to REDEFINE marriage as being only under your particular religious dogma's rules.

*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think seeing it for the mythology that it is puts things in perspective. It's a creation myth, like any other creation myth the world over.

Meaning what? That ancient people didn't take it literally?

And there's much more to the Bible than just creation myths.

 

[Demonslayer]

Answering a post with a Bible verse is exactly what preaching is.

I'm generally OK with people posting Bible quotes, to make a point or advance a discussion somehow. As long as it's not pages and pages of cut n paste Bible quotes that are in place of actual discussion.

 

[Orbit]

Meaning what? That ancient people didn't take it literally?

And there's much more to the Bible than just creation myths.

Do present-day tribes think their myths are literally true?

 

[Ingledsva]

Christianity totally and entirely hinges on the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. If those things didn't happen there is no such thing as Christianity. You are right about that.

I actually don't agree with this.

I believe they took the story of a HUMAN Jesus - who claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah, - and added god stuff to it.

The Messiah was to be a special human from the line of David, - not a literal son of God, or God, or trinity, etc.

The virgin birth story came from later misunderstanding and mistranslating of Isaiah. Didn't happen.

Jesus never claims to be God, or part of any trinity. We have no stories of him explaining his "virgin" birth.

The rising from the grave baloney - probably comes from misunderstanding that for the Jews - ALL people - good and bad - go to Sheol to await the Messiah, and Final Judgment. I assume the story of him going to "hell" after his death, and before rising, - is a misunderstanding of that. ALL go to Sheol, and then the Messiah judges.

I think they purposely added the fantasy stuff to make him more godlike and familiar to other religions they wanted to bring on board. Or perhaps the were using midrash techniques. Either way you don't have to believe it.

So what would that mean?

It means that you DO NOT have to believe in virgin births, or Jesus being God, - to be a follower of Jesus, - a Christian. You can straight-out believe, - without all the added fantasy fluff trappings, - that he is the Messiah, - and will at some point finish the Messiah roll.

*

 

[Orbit]

So, what the Bible says is off-limits and forbidden in a religious forum debate? Is that really your position?

The debate isn't about the Bible, so yes, it is off limits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do present-day tribes think their myths are literally true?

Some, yes. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Demonslayer]

Do present-day tribes think their myths are literally true?

According to most polls, about 1/3 of the present-day Christian tribe does think their myths are literally true. Zoo-boat and all!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/americans-bible-word-of-god_n_5446979.html

 

[Quintessence]

You make good points, lovemuffin. I should probably have clarified that I didn't mean religion in the abstract, as a concept, I was referring to what we actually have here on earth today. To the extent that religion is authoritarian, and has secular power, I think we have a problem. I actually find many good aspects of religious teachings: I think the teachings of Jesus and Buddha are wonderful; I love mystic apophatic theology; and there is a great deal of wisdom in Advaita Vedanta. I think where it all goes wrong is when dogma and authoritarianism about dogma are combined with secular power in politics and lawmaking. It might be worth asking "Can we fix the negatives we have now?"

The problem with fixing alleged problems is twofold: (1) what is labeled a "problem" is subjective, meaning what "we" think is a problem and what "they" think is a problem are not necessarily the same thing (and often aren't the same thing), (2) given the arbitrary nature of what a "problem" is, someone will always disagree with the "solution" and self-described problems beget more self-described problems, to some person, group, or another. Instead of looking at things as "problems" to be "solved," I prefer to look at what it is that I value and cultivate or encourage that. If someone else doesn't want to share those values, that's cool. They don't have to.

Something I haven't seen in this thread up to this point is an examination of what organization actually does for human social groups, religious or otherwise. Guess I find that a bit odd, given the relevance, and when I think about what organization does, it strikes me as a highly neutral attribute. Organization provides these sorts of things for a human social group:

• Organizing helps maintain group identity and group integrity. Without organization, human social groups tend to fall apart and die out. The rest of the items that follow build on the rest of these, as all of the below are more or less about maintaining a human social group through various mechanisms, yes?
• Organization provides leadership structure as well as leadership opportunities. The form this takes varies tremendously. Some organizations may have a more egalitarian organization, where everyone has equal votes, while others might have committees, and others still might have representatives elected, or some sort of authoritarian model. It's all over the place.
• Organization sets the norms for interpersonal interactions within the group. Aside from leadership structure, there might be different ranks and roles designated within the group. This might be to facilitate getting work done, it might be to recognize accomplishments within the group... and so on.
• Organization provides important resources to its respective community. I'm talking about things like buildings, which require some sort of organization to get funded and constructed. I'm also talking about things like human services, ranging from soup kitchens to counselors to officiators for things like weddings. All of that stuff benefits tremendously from organization of a group.
• Organization provides a framework and curriculum for education. This is very important for maintaining continuity of a tradition. Whether it is a group setting the standards for curriculum or educational structure organized into mentor-apprentice systems or lecturer-student systems, disorganized education is typically poor-quality mish-mash education that fails to pass on a culture's knowledge.

I'm sure there are some things I am missing, but this is what came to mind at the moment. Anyone have other things they could add?

But using this perhaps limited list as a guide, what I'm trying to figure out now... is how organized religion could possibly be bad. Organization in of itself seems pretty darned benign to me, whether it's of a religious group, political group, entertainment group, or whatever. It's also part and parcel with being human, thus isn't going away any time soon, right? So what are we really wanting to criticize here? Are we loosing sight of the trees through the forest?

I think it'd be nice to move away from masking labels like "organized religion" (or worse, just "religion") and instead look at what it is group X is doing that conflicts with our values. It seems to me that those things are at the heart of it, not the symbol that is stuck on those values.

 

[Demonslayer]

• Organizing helps maintain group identity and group integrity. Without organization, human social groups tend to fall apart and die out. The rest of the items that follow build on the rest of these, as all of the below are more or less about maintaining a human social group through various mechanisms, yes?

• Organization provides leadership structure as well as leadership opportunities. The form this takes varies tremendously. Some organizations may have a more egalitarian organization, where everyone has equal votes, while others might have committees, and others still might have representatives elected, or some sort of authoritarian model. It's all over the place.

• Organization sets the norms for interpersonal interactions within the group. Aside from leadership structure, there might be different ranks and roles designated within the group. This might be to facilitate getting work done, it might be to recognize accomplishments within the group... and so on.

• Organization provides important resources to its respective community. I'm talking about things like buildings, which require some sort of organization to get funded and constructed. I'm also talking about things like human services, ranging from soup kitchens to counselors to officiators for things like weddings. All of that stuff benefits tremendously from organization of a group.

• Organization provides a framework and curriculum for education. This is very important for maintaining continuity of a tradition. Whether it is a group setting the standards for curriculum or educational structure organized into mentor-apprentice systems or lecturer-student systems, disorganized education is typically poor-quality mish-mash education that fails to pass on a culture's knowledge.

ISIS organizes. The KKK organizes. Are all the positives you listed about organization actually positive if the end result is negative? I'm not sure I see your point here.