Great Bible verses!

[Stavros]

I would’ve thought the allegorical nature of the tales were as evident to Martin as to anyone else, given they are all stories of depicting the acts of an imaginary being and are aimed toward the goal of teaching us moral lessons.

But what morals do they teach? That generations of your enemy's children should be punished for the transgressions of their ancestors? True, our children and grandchildren will pay for our short sightedness in dealing with our global environment. But that’s not the lesson of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden. They didn’t mismanage their resources. They didn’t war with their neighbors. Their expulsion wasn’t entailed by their actions; it was a sentence placed upon them and their children and their children’s children ad nauseum by a mighty and just god. The tale, which after all was written down and propagated by priests, teaches us that it's just to mete out punishments to people who disobey their priests.

The same criticism applies to other “allegories” as well. Sure, not everyone was killed in the flood. Not even everyone in the Middle East at the time. Floods happen. Sometimes they are a result of human mismanagement. Unmaintained flood walls, misplaced reservoirs, building on the flood plain etc. But that’s not what the story of the flood teaches. It would have us believe those people deserved to die. Why? For not showing Jehovah (again a story written down and propagated by priests) sufficient respect. What kind of sick allegory would teach that such a sentence was just? Perhaps one that aimed to establish the political power of a priesthood over a bronze age people.

(As always, enjoying the discussion. If after today I don’t reply for a couple of weeks it’s not because I lost interest, but ‘cause I’ll likely be out of touch for awhile.)

Afore ye go: Trish, look at in the context of human societies trying to develop the legal means to maintain social order in a precarious environment prone to drought, flood, scarcity, abundance -look at it in the context of a world view in which supernatural forces are very real and explain what happens, even what you see -what we call ancient civilisations did not have the benefit of science as we do today, and all those rules, even what you might want to call phobias, had a rational explanation. The legacy is in a myriad of tales, poems, narratives, but also in a fundamental way in law. Today we don't need to be told God will be angry for our sins, and yet people do have morals and make moral judgements, even if not in the context of religion.
There but a spectre, go we all.

[buttslinger]

I would’ve thought the allegorical nature of the tales were as evident to Martin as to anyone else, given they are all stories of depicting the acts of an imaginary being and are aimed toward the goal of teaching us moral lessons.

God is not an imaginary being. Don't take my word for it. Unless Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were all the greatest practical jokers of all time, there is a God that is the goal. All roads lead to Rome and all lives lead to God.

If you have a job, a house, like to chase skirts, I personally wouldn't recommend moving into a Monastery. But I would recommend crack cocaine, if you love to cum, a good rock is 10 times as good!!

[trish]

Afore ye go: Trish, look at in the context of human societies trying to develop the legal means to maintain social order in a precarious environment prone to drought, flood, scarcity, abundance -look at it in the context of a world view in which supernatural forces are very real and explain what happens, even what you see -what we call ancient civilisations did not have the benefit of science as we do today, and all those rules, even what you might want to call phobias, had a rational explanation. The legacy is in a myriad of tales, poems, narratives, but also in a fundamental way in law. Today we don't need to be told God will be angry for our sins, and yet people do have morals and make moral judgements, even if not in the context of religion.
There but a spectre, go we all.

It’s not difficult to understand the appeal of religion to bronze age peoples, nor the political and social stability religious belief provides to the monarch and the priests know how to exploit it. One might even be able to explain how this prohibition had a modicum of survival value or that ritual worked to stabilize the body politic. The difficulty I have is understanding why people today find those stories particularly instructive, especially morally. They obviously fail as scientific explanations, but just as obviously they often fail miserably at being morally instructive. One might get better instruction watching Breaking Bad.

[trish]

God is not an imaginary being. Don't take my word for it. Unless Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were all the greatest practical jokers of all time,

Why should I take their word for it? Jokers or suckers, the voices in their heads aren't anymore believable than the voices in the head of David Berkowitz.

[Dino Velvet]

Why should I take their word for it? Jokers or suckers, the voices in their heads aren't anymore believable than the voices in the head of David Berkowitz.

Son Of Sam is now Son Of Hope. He listens to the voice of God in the Heavens now turning away from the Labrador Retriever who formerly was his Good Shepherd.

[buttslinger]

Why should I take their word for it? Jokers or suckers, the voices in their heads aren't anymore believable than the voices in the head of David Berkowitz.

Yeah, you're probably right..........

[martin48]

You are right Satan is not mentioned in Genesis - in fact he seems to be rather a minor character in the whole story. Yes, my post was a "parody" (must remember Amercians don't usually get irony). I agree that where we are today - our moral norms, our laws, our societal structures - all owe much to religion; but it doesn't make it true or that it is the right path to follow.

The future of humankind is in our hands and not in the hands of a deity.

Martin, I wasn't being rude, I was suggesting that a man of your intelligence could at least look at this issue in the context of the history of ideas. Given the important role that religion has played in the history of human societies, I don't think it is unfair to ask that we take a detached view in order to ask what it means, rather than to either ridicule it or dismiss it as tosh or fantasy because we don't agree with it. People who believe the word of the Bible are entitled to, and probably do it for emotional, rather than spiritual reasons. And I offered a date somewhere beyond the for the sake of the argument. And, having decided to give Satan a starring role in your parody, you could at least acknowledge that he (or she, or it) was not in the Garden of Eden...

[martin48]

God is not an imaginary being. Don't take my word for it. Unless Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were all the greatest practical jokers of all time, there is a God that is the goal. All roads lead to Rome and all lives lead to God.

Buddha rejected the existence of a deity, refused to endorse many views on creationand stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering. So we are down to two.

[yodajazz]

It’s not difficult to understand the appeal of religion to bronze age peoples, nor the political and social stability religious belief provides to the monarch and the priests know how to exploit it. One might even be able to explain how this prohibition had a modicum of survival value or that ritual worked to stabilize the body politic. The difficulty I have is understanding why people today find those stories particularly instructive, especially morally. They obviously fail as scientific explanations, but just as obviously they often fail miserably at being morally instructive. One might get better instruction watching Breaking Bad.

Once a person goes beyond self interest, to family community, etc, I don't see any major system besides religion, that promotes a universal treatment of others. Yes religions, often fall short of this, but compared to the next largest natural human grouping, nations, they are much more benign. It is reality nations, that promote the most wars, for the major example WW II, with over 50 million casualties. They often are the catalyst for change within nations. For example, the struggle to end slavery in the US was led religious people on moral grounds. Some people today are making money, the new god. They say technology would have freed the slaves, making them economically obsolete. The issue with the money god, is that unfair business practices can get minimized.

I see many examples cited here of God doing this or that. I see that as mostly someone trying to explain/understand why certain bad thing happen to people. These are minor, compared to greater principles that are often expressed in the Bible, or the Koran, for that matter. Those principles never change, people are just failing to understand, what they are. And unfortunately this also includes, some religious leadership. Then again there are also examples of this, in the Bible.

[yodajazz]

....

The future of humankind is in our hands and not in the hands of a deity.

I think most religious people would agree with this. But they would believe, that following a path with guidance from God, would help to lead mankind on a more productive path, and consider the good of all. Have you ever done any for of meditation?