Why the biblical religions are dangerous?

reply to post by Seede

I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind.

The above quote is taken from one of your previous posts, and is the reason I am challenging you. Without proof, I see no reason for belief.

I would like to take this moment to explain that most major religions are religions of expectation. I have often compared religion to spirituality in the same vein as others compare politics to humanitarianism. One is practiced for profit, the other for the sheer joy of it. In humanitarianism, you don't ask for taxes or votes. You do what you do to watch the people smile, and that in itself makes the entire experience worthwhile.

In the same vein, spirituality gives us a sense of connection and significance in the grand scheme. You are there to experience the joys that existentialism has to offer, and when it's done, it's done. Religion, on the other hand, spends the entirety of living preparing for death, never doing anything without expecting compensation in the afterlife. Just as we wouldn't work a 40 or 50 hour week without expecting payment, so we don't desire to discipline ourselves without eventual reward.

That's why the biblical religions are so dangerous. In a system of spiritual capitalism, it's easy to use the end to justify the means, especially when we have only a rudimentary understand of what the end is supposed to be about. Simply put, the system of sacrifice and reward encourages a mentality that offers just as many pitfalls as it hopes to curtail. In avoiding one danger, we have swung to the opposite extreme and invited blindspots of a polar nature with equally devastating potential.

That's my answer to the titular question of this thread.

Text Am I to understand that you claim that, should your beliefs be substantiated, the essence of their original purpose will be lost in the midst of the scientific validation? This, to my mind, is nothing short of a logical quandary. The more empirically valid an idea becomes, the less spiritually significant it becomes. Does something have to be impossible to have meaning? Does something have to be completely unfounded and irrational to be qualified as a spiritual omen? If such is the case, then Christianity is the art of irrationality and you have just admitted it.

You wrote – Quote “Am I to understand that you claim that, should your beliefs be substantiated, the essence of their original purpose will be lost in the midst of the scientific validation?


No, that is not what I have said or meant. If my belief is proven (substantiated) it then moves from theology to fact but still holds the same value unless additional substance is discovered and added. If this would be the case then it would be improved from its original model. This happens in science many times over. Now if my belief is fact and substantiated it still hold its originality unless diminished or improved.and if diminished it would still remain in the factual realm. So, no, there is no line in the sand to determine proof. Proof can simply be proof of existence or it could mean proof of its substance and many more such things but regardless of its meaning it has to establish itself first in the world of reality.

No, you also misunderstand my premise in that you have written – Quote “The more empirically valid an idea becomes, the less spiritually significant it becomes.” Unquote

Spirituality is not known to be observed but is once again in the realm of theology. That is to my knowledge. If I am correct then it once again is impossible to observe a theological belief. If a scientist has a model and that model is demonstrated to be observable it then moves into a factual model and once again moves out of the realm of theology. If this were possible, it is my opinion that it would enhance spirituality and not diminish spirituality.

If the Creator would show itself to the people as an observable fact, then that theological factor is removed but simply moving that theology into reality would not necessarily produce more obedience than when it was theology. In that sense it would depend upon the mindset of the different minds. Don’t misunderstand me in that I am saying that you can hypothesize both models.. You can not do that. You must choose your own champion in life.

In your final question – Quote “Does something have to be impossible to have meaning? Does something have to be completely unfounded and irrational to be qualified as a spiritual omen?” Unquote –

No, simply because impossibility belongs to the theoretical realm and not to the observable realm. Impossible can become fact through experiment but even though it could remain impossible in the observable realm it could have value to the theological mindset. That could entail religion.

You state – Quote “If such is the case, then Christianity is the art of irrationality and you have just admitted” Unquote

Christianity is a melting pot of many cultures of theology and has diverse qualities which have evolved from not one source but many sources. To parrot the word Christian has so many meanings that it should be referenced in a particular category. That would be like saying science is the art of observation when in fact all science is not observable. If you were to say the Christian church of the Roman Catholics then you would have a category from which to discuss and even then you would face much division in theological differences. If you were to say the Christian Church of Jerusalem then you would see that your premise is foolish to even examine.

In that sense I admit nothing of the sort that Christianity is the art of Irrationality. In the first place you nor I have the knowledge of all all of the hundreds of cults in Christianity to even make a statement such as that and even if either you or I did have that knowledge it would still remain as our opinions in a theological format.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Text In the same vein, spirituality gives us a sense of connection and significance in the grand scheme. You are there to experience the joys that existentialism has to offer, and when it's done, it's done. Religion, on the other hand, spends the entirety of living preparing for death, never doing anything without expecting compensation in the afterlife. Just as we wouldn't work a 40 or 50 hour week without expecting payment, so we don't desire to discipline ourselves without eventual reward. That's why the biblical religions are so dangerous. In a system of spiritual capitalism, it's easy to use the end to justify the means, especially when we have only a rudimentary understand of what the end is supposed to be about. Simply put, the system of sacrifice and reward encourages a mentality that offers just as many pitfalls as it hopes to curtail. In avoiding one danger, we have swung to the opposite extreme and invited blindspots of a polar nature with equally devastating potential.

Text

@ Afterinfinity

Very well said and with much passion. I do agree somewhat except that I do not include the Jerusalem Church as religion. The Jerusalem Church was the first Christian people who gave all wealth and love one to the other with no expectations of any material reward. This was done in the act of love which the Lord Jesus has taught.

I do admit that through systematically murdering these first Christians, the concept became corrupt and remains as the corrupt Roman culture and their offspring of today. My own opinion is that this was in the early years of the first century not later than 135 AD. Now this is my own opinion and not written in stone.as I am not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. The Apostles taught and preached in the Jerusalem Church and sought nothing from their labor except love for their own. Naturally they were aware that the kingdom of heaven waited for their deaths but in generality they loved the Lord and the people who accepted the Lord. Desertion could have been the order of the day but through love and truth they choose the church.

Now this is not for me to say that the first Christians would not have remained in the original pattern if left to their own demise. Perhaps not, I really cannot judge that matter but can only observe their history as is recorded. But according to what you have observed I cannot disagree. With my observation of today's religions it is somewhat dangerous to not only the outsiders looking in but also among themselves. Religions war one with the other and seemingly there is no stop to this insanity.


How many people today would give their absolute wealth towards the poor regardless of the name religion or spirituality? In my near ninety years of life I have not seen this and what is more all I do see is more and more greed and corruption in the religions of today. In that sense I must agree with you and you have written this very well. .

reply to post by Seede


I'm a little confused by that post. You seem to be having difficulty with the quote function.

Text I'm a little confused by that post. You seem to be having difficulty with the quote function.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


@ Afterlnfinity

Yes our power has been on and off for several hours and just as i was on transfer the power glitched again. Sorry about that. Your quote was page 16,paragraph 3 and should have been shown as Text quote. Do not know what or how that happened. In fact we just now got power up again. Thank you Afterlnfinity for your blog and I do appreciate your input.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


and that there is propaganda to cover what he really did, which was compile the book of books to disguise Christianity, his state religion, as something that was benevolent...so he tricked people into believing his forced unity was a good thing...by creating a religion that embraced all...or rather forced all into it...the choice was that or the sword or worse...

but he still did not deal with the root of the problem...you cannot erase evil by promoting tyranny...

the Christianity i speak of was what came from jesus himself...it was not liturgy or rote memorization, or doctrine, but teaching positive action, positive psychology, and meeting peoples needs head on, & not using a religion as a per-requisite...his theme was that the kingdom is within and it is now...not some by-and-by...it was about positive action, not about seeking eternal reward...those kinds of things were inserted but the original theme still stands...

the minute it became liturgy and recitation in front of one leader of the congregation, it became ripe for falling to the same flaws inherent in Judaism, and this is why Constantine capitalized on it after a time, because it fit his vision of the empire so well...what tyrant/dictator doesnt like people intently listening to them? wouldn't they also like it if religious people did the same each week to those that re-enforced that ideology of authority worship?

hijack might be the wrong term, but i think not considering that whoever objected to his prescription at Nicaea, was threatened and even beaten for daring to defy the wishes of the emperor...hardly a benevolent guy...and that also belies what was written, that he supposedly tossed out the bad and kept the good...no, he tossed out anything really meaningful and strung everything together that fit his prescription for domination...

all the rest of what you said on the last two pages i agree with, but on this thing about Constantine, i have to disagree...he did hijack a religion...it may have already been on the way to corruption again, but what he did was not good at all...

Originally posted by studythem1
i know i am going to gain a lot of flak over this post simply becasue many people are blind to the facts surrounding this.

No, you are not. Do you wanna gain a lot of flak? Try posting something defending religion, specially Cristianity. THAT will gain you a lot of flak. Bashing Cristianity is pretty much one of the only two things you can do without fear of repercussion.

Originally posted by studythem1
so what am i trying to say exactly? well lets get a few things out of the way. no i am not an atheist, i just do not believe that the hebrew bible is a true and honest depiction of the creator. and i also have a background in theology and the antiquities,

I do not believe you have a background like you claim for even an instant, unless you call a couple dozen hours randomly reading things on the internet as 'background.' Your writing is poor. Either English is not your first language or your are less schooled than you are pretending to be. Nothing wrong with that. It is just no use pretending.

Originally posted by studythem1
so what is wrong with the bible and why do i not think it is a true picture of the creator? i think this hinges on several points, but there are a few that come to mind immediately and are going ot be the focus of this topic.

1. the old testament documents their god yahweh as being the most murderous and evil of gods in history if we take the bible as 100% truth, and that is counter to what modern day theologians have to say about the same god,

Irrelevant. What makes you think that 'modern day theologians' are correct on what they say about the Creator and the 'ancient theologians' that wrote the Bible are wrong? What makes you think that the Creator must not be murderous and evil? And so what if He is? Does it make Him less of a Creator, why exactly?

Originally posted by studythem1
in canaanite theology or mythology, El was the chief of the gods...this was the one over the council of the gods, what was later referred to as the elohim...now this is a misleading word, because later to account ofr the israelites only believing in one god they had to misuse the word elohim, which is plural, and redefine it so that in its common usage it became another name for god...

The Hebrew word for "god" means simply "mighty". It denotes a being of power, not a 'specie'. The term 'god' is applied for many other beings, most notably for the Israelite judges, that even though humans, held much authority and power over others. And the use of Elohim for God is Majestic Plural.

Originally posted by studythem1
well, yahweh was the canaanite god of war...he was bloodthirsty, this was the only way to please this god, by an offering of the blood of a sacrifice...

There is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war. There are, however, plenty of anti-religious people clearly willing to jump the shark and grasp at straws to make the claim.

Originally posted by studythem1
so why did israel or judah eventually choose this god of war?

the area of israel and judah have always been on the borders of larger empires and nations, and the land in between them was strategically improtant to many, because it contained the trade routes between the east and the west of the known world in that hemisphere...so it was constantly in a state of war, and many were fighting for the control of these trade routes...so, since this area was always at war with sporadic luls in combat where the people enjoyed peace, there was always this danger of war, of being faced with death, and enslavement, of being taken over by new masters who were possibly nastier than the previous government, so it is not hard to see why people would long for victory in battle and turn to this god of war, making him the centerpiece of their cult...

they also remembered the days they spent in egypt, and their exposure to monotheism there, which they equated with unity, singleness of thought, national identity, and focus...so it was a very natural progression for them to also think that one war like god would deliver them from the enemies around them..

Non-sensical. This is nothing but speculation. Do you have any evidence backing this up?

reply to post by Leahn

There is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war. There are, however, plenty of anti-religious people clearly willing to jump the shark and grasp at straws to make the claim.

Are you kidding? No evidence? How about the Old Testament? Not enough for you?

Although Yahweh, the God the Israelites adopted, would one day become the supreme God of the land and eliminate his competition, initially he was just one of many competing “war and storm-gods;” as Prof. Erhard S. Gerstenberger writes on p.151 of Theologies of the Old Testament (emphasis added):

"Yahweh was not always God in Israel and at every social level. Rather, initially he belongs only to the storm and war gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, Resheph and Chemosh…His original homeland was the southern regions of present-day Palestine and Jordan. Thus the regional and functional, cultural and social limitations of Yahweh should be beyond all doubt. The elaboration of ideas about Yahweh, e.g. as a guarantor of fertility, personal good fortune, head of a pantheon, creator of the world, judge of the world, etc. is gradual and only fully unfolds in the exilic/post-exilic age, always in connection with social and historical changes."

In other words, Yahweh started out as a “storm and war god,” and only later acquired other functions now commonly associated with God, including for example the ability to create.

Biblical scholar Prof. J.M.P. Smith writes in Religion and War in Israel published in The American Journal of Theology (emphasis added):

"Among the functions of Yahweh called into play by Israel’s needs, the leading place in the earlier times was held by war…Hence, Yahweh is constantly represented as a war-god. He it is who marches at the head of Israel’s armies (Deut. 33:27); his right arm brings victory to Israel’s banners (Exod. 15:6); Israel’s wars are “the wars of Yahweh” himself (Num. 21:14; I Sam. 18:17, 25:28); Israel’s obligation is to “come to the help of Yahweh, to the help of Yahweh against the mighty” (Judg. 5:23); Israel’s enemies are Yahweh’s enemies (Judg. 5:31; I Sam. 30:26); Yawheh is Israel’s sword and shield (Deut. 33:29); yea, he is a “a man of war” (Exod. 15:3)

As the leader of a nation of war, Yahweh was credited with the military practices of the day. He shrank not from drastic and cruel measures. Indeed, he lent his name and influence to the perpetration of such deeds of barbarity…Yahweh orders the total extermination of clans and towns, including man, woman, and child (I Sam. 15:3; Josh 6:17 f.)".

In Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, winner of the 2005 National Jewish Book Award, Howard Schwartz writes (emphasis added):

40. The Warrior God Yahweh is a mighty warrior who defeated Pharaoh at the Red Sea…God appeared to Pharaoh as a mighty warrior, carrying a fiery bow, with a sword of lightning, traveling through the heavens in a chariot…God took a cherub from His Throne fo Glory and rode upon it, waging war against Pharaoh and Egypt, as it is said, He mounted a cherub and flew (Ps. 18:11). Leaping from one wing to another, God taunted Pharaoh, “O evil one, do you have a cherub? Can you do this?”

When the angels saw that God was waging war against the Egyptians on the sea, they came to His aid. Some came carrying swords and others carrying bows or lances. God said to them, “I do not need your aid, for when I go to battle, I go alone.” That is why it is said that Yahweh is a man of war (Exod. 15:3).

www.loonwatch.com...

Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is His Name.

reply to post by studythem1

the old testament documents their god yahweh as being the most murderous and evil of gods in history if we take the bible as 100% truth, and that is counter to what modern day theologians have to say about the same god

God mellowed out when he had a kid, that's all.

reply to post by windword


Dunning-Krueger effect at its finest. Do you even know what the thread and the OP are talking about?

OP's claim was "Yahweh was the canaanite god of war." What does the OT has to do with the ancient canaanite religion, prior to the existence of the OT itself? Nothing.

Keep in mind that, in every mythology, every single god always came to the aid of his or her worshippers, against their enemies. If that's your criteria, then basically every god that has ever existed is a god of war.

As I said, in my post, there are lots of anti-religious people willing to grasp at straws and jump the shark to make such claim. Your citations are nothing more than that. The author commits a basic mistake. Israel is not Canaan. A claim like this "Yahweh was not always God in Israel and at every social level. Rather, initially he belongs only to the storm and war gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, Resheph and Chemosh. (...) The elaboration of ideas about Yahweh, e.g. as a guarantor of fertility, personal good fortune, head of a pantheon, creator of the world, judge of the world, etc. is gradual and only fully unfolds in the exilic/post-exilic age, always in connection with social and historical changes" is non-sensical because there was no Israel before the "exilic/post-exilic age".

Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war. He isn't even mentioned in Canaanite mythology. The only mention of Yahweh that we have on Canaanite literature is in the Moabite Stone and it already refers to Him as the God of Israel.

reply to post by Leahn

Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war.

I am challenging your assertion that there is no evidence of Yahweh being represented as a god of war.

You are wrong wrong wrong! Geez, talk about the Dunning - Krueger effect! Your wearing it my dear.

But you just go ahead and ignore all the evidence, put your hands over your ears and sing, lalala, all the while blaming those pesky anti-Christian types for presenting Biblical evidence that Yahweh was a god of war.

reply to post by Leahn

Irrelevant. What makes you think that 'modern day theologians' are correct on what they say about the Creator and the 'ancient theologians' that wrote the Bible are wrong? What makes you think that the Creator must not be murderous and evil? And so what if He is? Does it make Him less of a Creator, why exactly?

That's like saying, "So what if Tommy's father is an abusive drunk? Does that make him less of a father?"

Yes. Yes, it does. Donating your sperm or essence in the creation of anything does not validate you as a responsible master or role model for that creation. It simply means you happened to exercise one of the inherent properties of life when you had no right doing so. It also means that if anyone is smart, they will remove you from the vicinity of the creation in order to prevent it from learning your ways.

The Hebrew word for "god" means simply "mighty". It denotes a being of power, not a 'specie'. The term 'god' is applied for many other beings, most notably for the Israelite judges, that even though humans, held much authority and power over others. And the use of Elohim for God is Majestic Plural.

Are you familiar with the term "tetragrammaton"? It is a proper name of the god of the Hebrew Bible, a Greek label serving as the source of the four letters composing the name YHWH, and research suggests that the term is more indicative of a force of nature than an actual sentient being. It is certainly a "mighty" force, but not an actual sentient ruler.

As such, it's reasonable to suggest that modern Christians don't actually know what they are worshipping, or they would be paying far more heed to science. Unfortunately, typical Christian doctrine, in the process of pushing its faith agenda, encourages the logical ignorance of its subjects in the hopes of preventing a union that would possibly unlock a potential never before witnessed in the world of Homo Sapiens...a potential that has surprisingly little to do with the dogmatic dreams touted by the average Judaic.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by studythem1

 

so why did israel or judah eventually choose this god of war?

They didnt choose Yahweh. Yahweh chose them.

If you think the Old Testament judgements were bad, wait till he returns. It gets much worse for those that refuse salvation, and side with evil.

You will curse Him instead of repenting because of what you see coming to the Earth. No point in complaining about the Old Testament, his wrath will be complete this time around.

edit on 27-4-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

If he's an all forgiving God as your Bible claims, then why does he have any wrath at all?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
That's like saying, "So what if Tommy's father is an abusive drunk? Does that make him less of a father?"

Yes. Yes, it does. Donating your sperm or essence in the creation of anything does not validate you as a responsible master or role model for that creation. It simply means you happened to exercise one of the inherent properties of life when you had no right doing so. It also means that if anyone is smart, they will remove you from the vicinity of the creation in order to prevent it from learning your ways.

Father and creator are not equivalent. A better comparison would be between a creator and a progenitor. Would Tommy's progenitor being an abusive drunk make it less of a progenitor? No, it wouldn't.

Are you familiar with the term "tetragrammaton"? It is a proper name of the god of the Hebrew Bible, a Greek label serving as the source of the four letters composing the name YHWH, and research suggests that the term is more indicative of a force of nature than an actual sentient being. It is certainly a "mighty" force, but not an actual sentient ruler.

Research? Which research? I see no citation. What you said makes absolutely no sense. God's name is basically a form of the Aramaic verb "To Be".

As such, it's reasonable to suggest that modern Christians don't actually know what they are worshipping, or they would be paying far more heed to science. Unfortunately, typical Christian doctrine, in the process of pushing its faith agenda, encourages the logical ignorance of its subjects in the hopes of preventing a union that would possibly unlock a potential never before witnessed in the world of Homo Sapiens...a potential that has surprisingly little to do with the dogmatic dreams touted by the average Judaic.

edit on 16-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

While I agree that most Christians nowadays have little to no knowledge of the Bible and what it contains and are far more involved with Paganism than with Christianity per se, what exactly has Science to do with anything and what exactly do you mean with your statements?

Originally posted by babybunnies
If he's an all forgiving God as your Bible claims, then why does he have any wrath at all?

The Bible does not claim that God is all-forgiving. Much less so, He conditions His forgiveness upon repentance, withdrawal of the sinning behavior and the faith in the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus.

reply to post by Leahn

The Bible does not claim that God is all-forgiving. Much less so, He conditions His forgiveness upon repentance, withdrawal of the sinning behavior and the faith in the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus.

Reminiscent of the conditioning one observes in George Orwell's 1984, in which society is trained to discipline themselves in the art of behaving precisely according to society's preservation precisely as their leaders envision it. Free will is a myth, liberty is a myth, living itself is a myth as your life is only permitted so long as it is aligned with the intentions of your leaders.

Their happiness is your happiness. Their displeasure is your punishment. Their future is your destiny. You are but an extension of them, present only to provide your services in furtherance of their agendas. They do not need you. You need them. And as such, you are but one of numerous cattle bred and trained for the sole purpose of fulfilling a plan set in place before you were born, a plan focused on the interests of existence itself. A coldly logical world that cares for nothing beyond perpetually assured survival. That's what I see in your doctrine.

How's that for living?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Reminiscent of the conditioning one observes in the George Orwell's 1984, in which society is trained to discipline themselves in the art of behaving precisely according to society's preservation precisely as their leaders envision it. Free will is a myth, liberty is a myth, living itself is a myth as your life is only permitted so long as it is aligned with the intentions of your leaders.

Are you saying that parts of the Bible are based on Orwell's 1984?

reply to post by Leahn

Are you saying that parts of the Bible are based on Orwell's 1984?

Did I say that? I don't believe that suggestion was ever explicitly stated - and rest assured, if my intention were to suggest such, it would have been explicitly stated. Also, you missed a significant portion of the post from which you quoted.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Leahn

 

Are you saying that parts of the Bible are based on Orwell's 1984?

Did I say that? Also, you missed a significant portion of the post from which you quoted.

Yes, you did. You said that what I mentioned of the Bible was reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.
Not my fault about missing. You edited your post while I was replying to it.

reply to post by Leahn

Yes, you did. You said that what I mentioned of the Bible was reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

You obviously don't know the definition of reminiscence.

Not my fault about missing. You edited your post while I was replying to it.

I wasn't blaming you, I was inviting you to address the points I added.