Are some teachings of the bible salvageable?

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, mwc said:

     Then why speak of power when all religions have had that reverence and power?

 

     I'm left to wonder why this is important.  If xianity co-opted the idea of the golden rule then so why is it so hard to admit it?  It was probably coined, in some form, about 2000 BCE.  So as far from xianity as xianity is from us.  It's a concept that far precedes this single religion, exists in the east and west, and would have survived without it.

 

      Maybe you should consider if xianity derives some of its power from things like this?  Xianity didn't give this concept its power but rather this concept helped give xianity some of its power that you're so rather fond of.

 

          mwc

 

 

I brought up power because it's a relevant fact about the situation.  Most here probably wouldn't care much about Christianity, were it not so powerful in our society and in our own lives.  But we do care.  Because it's powerful.  That may not be important to you, but it is to me.

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I brought up power because it's a relevant fact about the situation.  Most here probably wouldn't care much about Christianity, were it not so powerful in our society and in our own lives.  But we do care.  Because it's powerful.  That may not be important to you, but it is to me.

     I guess I don't follow then.

 

     When I first posted I essentially said the golden rule didn't need to salvaged from the bible because it was already found in other cultures and have been working from that. You're saying here that xianity is powerful in our society and lives.

 

     I see a non-sequitur.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I agree that Christianity is really nothing new.  So perhaps the power is not all in the message.  Perhaps the "power" that it has is due to the sly organizers of the Catholic church who started the whole process.  They knew how to condition/program human minds, and had the means to do it to millions of people.  They took aome old myths, made them the holy, inerrant word of God (who could give you eternal life, or eternal Hell if you don't follow him) and added pomp and ceremony which impressed the common people.   Then they proceeded for centuries to get rid of any conflicting beliefs, declaring them to be heresy, and that God would send you to Hell you for believing them.  They "force fed" this stuff to as much of the world as they could, with the power of the Roman government, for centuries.  That programming of "truth" over a large portion of human minds in the world, over a long period of time,  was extremely effective.  It became THE TRUE, HOLY, INERRANT, WORD OF THE SUPREME, OMNIOPENT GOD.   It simply was imprinted on the minds of more people than the other religions, and therefore made a huge imprint, and impact, on the world. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Now, back to salvaging part of the Bible.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Now, back to salvaging part of the Bible.

I've generally found the Table of Contents to be a reliable source of truthful information, even in the bible.  I'm sure we could keep that part.  And possibly the index.

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, mwc said:

     I guess I don't follow then.

 

     When I first posted I essentially said the golden rule didn't need to salvaged from the bible because it was already found in other cultures and have been working from that. You're saying here that xianity is powerful in our society and lives.

 

     I see a non-sequitur.

 

          mwc

 

 

I'll try to clarify.  I think we're largely talking past each other.  And I appreciate you engaging with me on this.  I also post on some Christian forums, but they usually can't discuss these sorts of ideas.

 

Part of why I'm here (besides just having fun discussions with people I think a lot of, including yourself), is to try and understand my own boundaries, of where I consciously apply 'logic'... and where I don't care to.  That's not a practice that I'm here to 'defend' or even necessarily recommend.  It's a practice that I'm still working on understanding.  I'm trying to be clear about where my beliefs are more or less logical, and where they're simply not.

 

DB asked whether some teachings in the bible are salvageable.  Somehow that question has turned into whether or not some teachings "need to be salvaged".  Those aren't really the same thing, and I'm not working within the 'salvage' framework anyway.  I accept that many ideas within Christianity definitely pre-date the religion.  But to my mind, a lot of the power these concepts hold (not within a theoretical discussion, but within today's world), are due to the fact that they're a part of Christianity.  

 

And it's not just about numbers, although those numbers matter a lot.  This is also about religious practice, and how that affects peoples' lives.  I think the following statements won't be too controversial here, though we can pick them apart if needed:

 

1.  We humans are more or less wired for religious, tribal thinking.  As evidence, I'd point to the fact that the vast majority of humanzees throughout history have been religious.  Even those who aren't, they inevitably still hold many ideas with a religious sort of conviction, and can be just as tribal as the Christians.  It's not logical, but IMO it speaks to how our upgraded chimp brains are wired.

 

2.  Atheists and the like generally don't see the value in, and usually don't engage in, religious beliefs and rituals.

 

3.  There is a difference between understanding an idea, even agreeing with an idea, vs. holding it sacred as a religious belief.  Even if the idea in question is roughly the same between a non-believer and a believer, that idea will have different effects on each.  The non-believer can agree with it, discuss it with his friends, write about it, hold it dear... whatever he wants to do.  The believer can pray on it, meet up with his tribe to ritualistically study and discuss the idea.  His tribe will inevitably judge his sincerity regarding the idea.  He can share the idea with peers who hold the idea sacred for much the same reasons, and refer back to tradition going back thousands of years to see what others in said tradition have to say about it.  None of this speaks to the whether or said idea is factual, but it does speak to the impact of said idea on the individual in question.  And of course if a person believes that they will burn for all eternity if they don't hold and follow said idea correctly... that will definitely have a powerful effect on their lives, totally different than the effect on a secular individual.  This is a big part of the power I'm referring to. Whatever you think of it... I think it's an important thing to understand.

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

29 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I've generally found the Table of Contents to be a reliable source of truthful information, even in the bible.  I'm sure we could keep that part.  And possibly the index.

 

I like this post too 

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

1.  We humans are more or less wired for religious, tribal thinking.  As evidence, I'd point to the fact that the vast majority of humanzees throughout history have been religious.  Even those who aren't, they inevitably still hold many ideas with a religious sort of conviction, and can be just as tribal as the Christians.  It's not logical, but IMO it speaks to how our upgraded chimp brains are wired.

 

 

RS,

 

In my opinion there needs to be some further clarification/explanation about this point.

 

Just because humans appear to be wired for religious thought, that, in of itself should not be taken as any kind of justification for saying that because of this wiring religion generally is true or any religion in particular is true.  Ok, you did not actually make this claim.  But it is still there, latent in the content of your point, even if it went unexpressed and unmentioned.

 

Sometimes Christian apologists have used this apparent wiring for religion in the human brain as a kind of indicator of the truth of their beliefs.  Granted, you didn't do this, but I still feel that it is necessary to address this hidden point.

 

There is a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for why humans are predisposed to religious thought - one that I find quite persuasive.  Here are the links.

 

Patternicity » Michael Shermer

 

Agenticity » Michael Shermer

 

My apologies if this post has taken this thread at all off track.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

53 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I've generally found the Table of Contents to be a reliable source of truthful information, even in the bible.  I'm sure we could keep that part.  And possibly the index.

I wish I could give this a laugh face and a trophy.  

 

DB

[RankStranger]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

RS,

 

In my opinion there needs to be some further clarification/explanation about this point.

 

Just because humans appear to be wired for religious thought, that, in of itself should not be taken as any kind of justification for saying that because of this wiring religion generally is true or any religion in particular is true.  Ok, you did not actually make this claim.  But it is still there, latent in the content of your point, even if it went unexpressed and unmentioned.

 

Sometimes Christian apologists have used this apparent wiring for religion in the human brain as a kind of indicator of the truth of their beliefs.  Granted, you didn't do this, but I still feel that it is necessary to address this hidden point.

 

There is a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for why humans are predisposed to religious thought - one that I find quite persuasive.  Here are the links.

 

Patternicity » Michael Shermer

 

Agenticity » Michael Shermer

 

My apologies if this post has taken this thread at all off track.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yeah, I didn't make that argument.  None of this makes Christianity true.

 

And thank you for taking this thread off track.  I would like to see more of that

 

[RankStranger]

Wait... sorry.  This ain't my thread.

 

Walter, please disregard.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Were primitive humans (we) wired for magical (religious) thought?  Or was it the natural result of trying to explain what they didn't understand at the time.  Did the belief in magic evolve into "religion"?

[RankStranger]

7 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Were primitive humans (we) wired for magical (religious) thought?  Or was it the natural result of trying to explain what they didn't understand at the time.  Did the belief in magic evolve into "religion"?

 

I'm not sure.  I'm not sure our descriptions are mutually exclusive either.  The unexplainable will always be with us, and religion is how an awful lot of humans deal with it.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Look at the development of infants today.  They believe in magic, but the form it can eventually take (religion) is programmed into them by their environment.  In India they become Hindu.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

DB asked whether some teachings in the bible are salvageable. 

 

You initially said that you wanted to keep all of it. And from a historical standpoint I agree. Even If Christianity withered away to almost nothing. The impact on our history that it has made can never be forgotten. For the good and the bad. We can learn from historical truths about the bible. The beliefs they promoted. The pros and cons of those beliefs. How those beliefs affected people in various times. How polytheism was crushed by monotheism through Christianity and Islam. 

 

From that perspective there is no end to the studies that could be done. 

 

But from a belief standpoint I think the overall bible is toxic. It has kept people in a state of suppression for thousands of years. Just the belief in hell has traumatized countless people through the ages. The promises of God are a disappointment to all that realize they don't really exist. But worst of all the feeling of worthlessness it instills in people is sick. Noone will ever actually be good enough. And that is scripture. We all have to be like gods son for his father to even accept us.  That strips away even a child's individuality and that just feels like a crime to me now. 

 

2.3 billion people are trying to worship an ancient and toxic belief in a time when people are trying to free themselves from those ideologies. The sad thing is that in some cases they are trying to straddle a fence that was never meant to be straddled. The Bible is pretty clear that it is all or nothing with its God. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

23 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

You initially said that you wanted to keep all of it. And from a historical standpoint I agree. Even If Christianity withered away to almost nothing. The impact on our history that it has made can never be forgotten. For the good and the bad. We can learn from historical truths about the bible. The belief they promoted. The pris and cons of those beliefs. How those beliefs affected people in various times. How polytheism was crushed by monotheism through Christianity and Islam. 

 

From a perspective there is no end to the studies that could be done. 

 

But from a belief standpoint I think the overall bible is toxic. It has kept people in a state of suppression for thousands of years. Just the belief in hell has traumatized countless people through the ages. The promises of God are a disappointment to all that realize they don't really exist. But worst of all the feeling of worthlessness it instills in people is sick. Noone will ever actually be good enough. And that is scripture. We all have to be like gods son for his father to even accept us.  That strips away even a child's individuality and that just feels like a crime to me now. 

 

2.3 billion people are trying to worship an ancient and toxic belief in a time when people are trying to free themselves from those ideologies. The sad thing is that in some cases they are trying to straddle a fence that was never meant to be straddled. The Bible is pretty clear that it is all or nothing with its God. 

 

DB

 

I can't say that any of this is wrong, if one takes a fundamentalist view of the Bible.

[RankStranger]

36 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Look at the development of infants today.  They believe in magic, but the form it can eventually take (religion) is programmed into them by their environment.  In India they become Hindu.

 

True enough.  But if they're raised to be rationalists, will they become rational?  I have doubts.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

True enough.  But if they're raised to be rationalists, will they become rational?  I have doubts.

Having doubts is rational.  Were you raised to be a rationalist?

[RankStranger]

No, I was raised to be a Holy Roller.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

True enough.  But if they're raised to be rationalists, will they become rational?  I have doubts.

 

50 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Having doubts is rational.  Were you raised to be a rationalist?

 

28 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

No, I was raised to be a Holy Roller.

And yet, you managed to become rational.  Perhaps your doubts are unfounded.  If you were capable of overcoming your upbringing, perhaps there is hope for us all.

[Edgarcito]

The concept of grace is certainly worth keeping..

[TheRedneckProfessor]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The concept of grace is certainly worth keeping..

Depends on what you mean by "grace."  "Unwarranted favor" and "unconditional absolution" are both noble goals that fall under the umbrella of "grace."  But if "grace" requires the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin, or involves any kind of substitutionary sacrifice or death, then, no, it is not worth keeping.  It should be thrown out along with all of the other barbaric practices and beliefs of the ancient religions. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Depends on what you mean by "grace."  "Unwarranted favor" and "unconditional absolution" are both noble goals that fall under the umbrella of "grace."  But if "grace" requires the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin, or involves any kind of substitutionary sacrifice or death, then, no, it is not worth keeping.  It should be thrown out along with all of the other barbaric practices and beliefs of the ancient religions. 

I know there are people that would gladly give their life if they had the chance for countless others freedom from sin.  Sacrificing animals doesn’t even seem to come close… 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I know there are people that would gladly give their life if they had the chance for countless others freedom from sin.  Sacrificing animals doesn’t even seem to come close… 

Perhaps; but the point I am making is that an omni-everything god who requires bloodshed in order to forgive is simply a barbaric idea.  Whether the willingness to sacrifice is noble or not is heavily influenced by the reason sacrifice is necessary to begin with. 

[RankStranger]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The concept of grace is certainly worth keeping..

 

I very much like this post.