The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"

[martin48]

Trish - Well argued. I can not hope to compete with such a superior being (though still finite). I offer this quote in reply

“How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape.”
― Christopher Hitchens (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3956.Christopher_Hitchens)

[buttslinger]

I have no interest walking arm in arm with religious zealots who would force others to believe as they do. Conversation and thought are tools enough. As far as I’m concerned people can believe and will believe what they wish. That doesn’t mean I respect all religious belief, or will not criticize some religious beliefs or belittle some religious beliefs.

Here's the thing: religious zealots have no interest in walking down the street with a mixed race guy in a dress, either. Judging someone with your eyes or judging someone with your mind only states the obvious. Congratulations. How can a SCHOOLTEACHER lecture anyone on grading people? Are you claiming that they shouldn't judge you, or they shouldn't judge you WRONGLY???

A group of religious zealots are all on the same page, just like a group of outlaw bikers or a bowling team. I'm glad they found each other.

Have you people EVER listened to a Dylan album? Music, Art, Literature?

They have put SPECT and PET scans to yogis in deep meditation. They showed that the brains were asleep. Conversation and thought are way too slow for God. So are brains. And the World. This place is a shithole, get out while you have the energy.
In Life, EVERYTHING counts.

Criticize what you don't even understand HEATHENS!!!!!!

Who's got it better?
The transsexual call-girl who make 5 grand a night?
Or the Fat-Cat Republican who can afford to pay?
You can't have one without the other.

http://s27.postimg.org/xsvb72ebn/pablo_picasso_demoiselles_davignon_2.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting websites (http://postimage.org/)

[trish]

Are you claiming that they shouldn't judge you, or they shouldn't judge you WRONGLY???Neither. What part of “people can believe and will believe what they wish,” don’t you understand? Judging, as you use it here, is a part of believing. If you read carefully you’ll see that I merely object to Stavros lumping of you, Martin and others with just those zealots. Just in case you prefer to be lumped with them, I left your name out of it and spoke for myself only.


Criticize what you don't even understand HEATHENS!!!!!!Mostly I criticize what I do understand, study what I don’t understand and ask people who claim to know things like “Conversation and thought are way too slow for God” exactly what they mean and how they know.


Who's got it better?
The transsexual call-girl who make 5 grand a night?
Or the Fat-Cat Republican who can afford to pay?I wouldn’t know.

[buttslinger]

"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

This is GOD-101
That's why I thought you were.......Pro-God.

[fred41]

It's like, the long answer with the pretty picture and the humorous pseudo-moral, have absolutely nothing to do with the quote in red that supposedly inspired the response.
Maybe I'm not reading it right.
I know I'm on drugs buttslinger...I only hope for your sake you are too...lol

[buttslinger]

The Humor that I am the one speaking for god here has not escaped me.

[martin48]

My humo(u)r is independent of an imaginary being.

[Stavros]

In Matthew 25:31,32,33 we read “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate the people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.”

Are we to take this literally or is the second coming a metaphor? In either case, people are being likened to sheep and goats. What distinguishes the sheep from the goats?

Matthew 25:34-46 tells us that essentially the sheep are those who treated people with charity even though they were strangers and the goats are those who were uncharitable. The goats will say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?” And the Son of Man will answer, “...just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.”

One metaphor is made explicit here: every person, even the stranger, is Jesus and Matthew here is telling us that we must treat others as charitably as we would treat Jesus. But why?

Matthew has Jesus tell the sheep, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” To the goats he says, “...depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

If this is a metaphor, an implicit analogy, then what is homologue of eternal life? Well-being? Satisfaction? Contentment? Justice? Knowledge that you’ll be fondly remembered? What is eternal punishment? Frustration? Being disliked? Empty? Knowledge that you’ll be forgotten or hated by future generations?

From my perspective, these interpretations work fairly well as providing reasons (albeit selfish ones) for being charitable.

Now suppose eternal life and eternal punishment are not metaphors. Surely the harm done by any being of finite power is finite. Even the destruction of the planet and on life upon is a finite amount damage (especially if every soul on it lives forever anyway either in Heaven or Hell). Why would a charitable God choose to punish anyone eternally for something they did as a finite material being during a tiny, finite window of time spent on this little ball of dirt? Eternal life, eternal punishment, Heaven and Hell on one side of the scale and human beings, ignorant except of whatever conflicting things they’re told by human authorities purporting to speak for the Gods on the other side. Do the scales balance? I think not, not if eternal life and eternal punishment are interpreted literally.

So I’m perfectly willing to accept that the parables, the stories and the advice given in the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita etc. work as metaphors. But does any Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. take all of these stories metaphorically? Are there any Christians who think the soul is finite? That life after death is a fiction? That the second coming is just a metaphor? Just a way of presenting a story? Or do Christians continue primarily to think in the primitive modes our prehistoric forebears explored? Do they not still walk in those same baby steps, afraid to set out on their own because otherwise the cosmos seems too big, too bewildering? Here in the U.S. Christians refuse to acknowledge that humans give purpose to life and as a result they live empty lives waiting for a non-existent God or one of his earthly authorities to tell them how to live.

I have no interest walking arm in arm with religious zealots who would force others to believe as they do. Conversation and thought are tools enough. As far as I’m concerned people can believe and will believe what they wish. That doesn’t mean I respect all religious belief, or will not criticize some religious beliefs or belittle some religious beliefs.

Humans have created the narrative which presents a moral life to people in the context of punishment and reward based on the way that people live. At some point in the last 7,000 years or more, humans realised the difference between a 'state of nature' and a 'state of government' -as Hobbes puts it- and developed politics to order society so that people could find a way to live through co-operation and common endeavour, rather than through selfishness and perpetual violence, and justified it using the existing cosmology and adapting it to contemporary issues.

It seems to me you are looking at this issue backwards by ignoring the cosmology that was at the foundation of human thought -accepting that some human societies, but not many, appear(ed) to have no religion (eg, the Pygymy of Central Africa)- a cosmology that as I suggested has no practical concept of time as a finite thing but sees the here and now joined to an eternal past and future in which without knowing how, humans believe they live on, as humans or spirits, or are re-incarnated so that death never really means death. I am afraid you have to accept that the idea that there is nothing after death terrifies a substantial number of people, even if it is true. One of the reasons people turn to religion for spiritual nourishment is the absence of it which they find in modern life, just as for some the benefit in the here and now is the practical experience of being part of a community that believes the same things and worships together, much as fans of a baseball or football team will congregate in a stadium once a week.

The metaphors and literary styles one finds in so many religious texts have become the axis on which much of contemporary interpretations rest, because the fundamental problem is precisely how we in the 21st century understand texts that were written in the Bronze Age or after, up to and including the Quran, and in the case of the Old Testament we know that many of the ideas contained in it were imported into Judaism from beliefs and practices that were common in Babylon, just as Ancient Egypt had a greater impact on 'classical' Greece than used to be thought by some scholars. This raises the question why so many ideas if not all practices endure across thousands of years -a scientist might say, because we are all humans and inherit the same characteristics- which is why I find it at least odd that some atheists would so easily dismiss thousands of years of human history in just the same way that Abdul Wahab dismissed everything that had happened in Islam since ibn Taymiah in the 13th century if not before that. I suspect that modernization is a key breakwater here and that different reactions to it enable some to dismiss everything that has happened before as 'out of date' and 'archaic' just as others believe modernization is destroying the human past and should be opposed, be they Salafists of Islam or the Unabomber in the USA.

Punishment and reward are fundamental to the ways in which human societies are organized, and much of secular law in many parts of the world incorporates into its statutes the principles that can be found in all religions. If precise punishments for crimes have changed -stoning adulterers to death, for example- that is more a reflection of contemporary life than the religion, and it shows how religions endure by adapting to their times, though I don't think that they would survive if people did not believe in the religion, and that is where I think the main divide exists today between believers and non-believers. What is interesting here is how major traumas can lead society onto different paths.

Thus, in the years that followed the collapse of Biafra's attempt to break away from Nigeria, resulting in a terrible civil war and famine, local people -many as a result of evangelical work by outsiders- became evangelical Christians in a way that had not been noticed before. The same process, albeit one that was encouraged by American Missionaries, happened in Uganda after the collapse of Idi Amin Dada's dictatorship and has been part of the hysterical anti-homosexual abuse in life and in the law that is also prominent in numerous, mostly Christian African countries, just as the revival of the Russian Orthodox church since 1991 has been accompanied by a 'conservative' attitude to social issues, as well as reviving the 'nationalism' that was an indelible part of the Tsarist autocracy before 1917. On the other hand, many people who see the horrible crimes that are committed in the name of religion go in the opposite direction and reject religion altogether. Whether or not the convulsions in the Middle East will mark the beginning of the decline of Islam I cannot say as the alleged resurgence of it is so bound up with the search for a practical politics that enables people to live a quiet life that is is too early to say. It is in the revival of what to many are the out-dated practices of religion -the 'abomination' of same-sex relations for example- that encourages the dispute, even though the easy way round it, and it is not a cop-out is to simply dismiss this aspect of religion much as other practices have been. If this sounds like a 'perfect menu' has gone from all-or-nothing to pick-and-choose this is also a fact about religion, because most believers most of the time find the moral strictures too strict, and constantly seek exemptions, and these disputes and practices explain why all of the Abrahamic faiths have fractured into sects which modify the religion even as each one eyes each other with suspicion, even loathing. The irony here being that if these warring parties were indeed to 'return' to the basic tenets of their faith these disputes would ebb away, whereas in the context of a fiercely contested political realm as one finds in the Middle East in the current disputes between Muslims, and between Orthodox and Secular Jews in Israel and the West Bank the way in which a religion is lived seems to take over from the beliefs that inform it, where modernization is the key driver begging the questions for which religion may only have an unsatisfactory answer.

What is clear is that there are people who want to be part of something bigger than themselves, that they want to be part of a collective -the use of sheep in Christian metaphor implies innocence rather than servility-, rather than in Nietzsche's sense develop themselves on the basis of their own personal vision. But one can never really separate the individual from the collective, because without language we cannot exist as societies, although it may be possible to do so individually if one becomes a hermit. And it is that language that binds, which both asks and answers questions if not always in a conclusive way.
But I do think that just as the secular world must acknowledge the debt it owes to religion, those who believe and practice religion must make that bold, even reckless step to admit that their scriptures do not contain the first and last word on everything and that the men who propagated it were not perfect or divine even if that is what people want to believe. This seems to me the rational way of maintaining the essence of what religion is without taking on the baggage of those features of ancient life which we now consider to be useless, offensive, or counter-productive, but as there is such a degree of intolerance on both sides, I don't expect universal peace and harmony to shape our lives in the near future, if ever. But one lives in hope....

[trish]

There is little, if anything, I would take issue with in your latest post.

I might imagine the transition to politically organized societies may have been less abrupt then Hobbes describes, but I agree our moral narrative is of human origin. I can understand how the fear of death inspires the kind of denial of its existence that most religions perpetuate in the guise of everlasting souls, or perpetual reincarnation. I also understand how organized worship and its ritual provides a sense of community and provides ritualized experiences around which communities can bond.

I do not think religious practice is the only thing around which such bonds can be formed, but perhaps because of their age, the roots of these practices sweep broadly through the foundations of most societies. One cannot birth, marry, suffer illness, celebrate good fortune or sit down to a family meal without someone invoking the blessing of one god, goddess or another through the ritual of prayer or sacrifice.

We may differ on the weight one should grant to age when evaluating the truth or falsity of a proposition, but I do realize (I think) that you are less concerned with the truth of a justification given for an enduring practice than with the value of the practice itself. There are many arenas.

I was brought up within a Christian tradition to which my parents and siblings still subscribe. Even though I am openly atheistic, I still bow my head at family meals, weddings, baptisms and funerals because the world isn’t about me or my beliefs. People deal and grow however they are able. In this sense I respect these practices; and in this sense they are forced upon me.

[hippifried]

Reward and punishment is how we train our pets. I owe no debt to religion at all. Like the vast majority of people on this planet, I follow the universal moral code that tells me to treat everyone as if they were me. Like people since prehistory (regardless of religious bent), I do this without a single thought about what some self proclaimed mage, sage, seer, king, bureaucrat, "leader", preacher, writer, editor, compiler, philosopher, or any other hack has to say about it. Personally, I think the code is innate, but that's a different argument. Religion & all other forms of autocratic rule just slow the pace of human social progress by forcing their own rules to the top of the priority list, while confounding or ignoring the basic moral code.

KIS,S

[Stavros]

Reward and punishment is how we train our pets. I owe no debt to religion at all. Like the vast majority of people on this planet, I follow the universal moral code that tells me to treat everyone as if they were me. Like people since prehistory (regardless of religious bent), I do this without a single thought about what some self proclaimed mage, sage, seer, king, bureaucrat, "leader", preacher, writer, editor, compiler, philosopher, or any other hack has to say about it. Personally, I think the code is innate, but that's a different argument. Religion & all other forms of autocratic rule just slow the pace of human social progress by forcing their own rules to the top of the priority list, while confounding or ignoring the basic moral code.

KIS,S

I appreciate the meat in your post, but must admit I feel your opening sentence -Reward and punishment is how we train our pets- trivializes an important dynamic in human relations and not least because you later imply that this arrangement of moral judgement is innate in all humans. I think we can do better than that, and see my other post for an additional argument.

[Stavros]

There is little, if anything, I would take issue with in your latest post.

I might imagine the transition to politically organized societies may have been less abrupt then Hobbes describes, but I agree our moral narrative is of human origin. I can understand how the fear of death inspires the kind of denial of its existence that most religions perpetuate in the guise of everlasting souls, or perpetual reincarnation. I also understand how organized worship and its ritual provides a sense of community and provides ritualized experiences around which communities can bond.

I do not think religious practice is the only thing around which such bonds can be formed, but perhaps because of their age, the roots of these practices sweep broadly through the foundations of most societies. One cannot birth, marry, suffer illness, celebrate good fortune or sit down to a family meal without someone invoking the blessing of one god, goddess or another through the ritual of prayer or sacrifice.

We may differ on the weight one should grant to age when evaluating the truth or falsity of a proposition, but I do realize (I think) that you are less concerned with the truth of a justification given for an enduring practice than with the value of the practice itself. There are many arenas.

I was brought up within a Christian tradition to which my parents and siblings still subscribe. Even though I am openly atheistic, I still bow my head at family meals, weddings, baptisms and funerals because the world isn’t about me or my beliefs. People deal and grow however they are able. In this sense I respect these practices; and in this sense they are forced upon me.

I don't think this debate needs to delve too deeply into our personal situations, I would prefer to debate the broader issue which is the relationship between organized religion and society, not least because at the present juncture there is such a terribly real connection between organized religion and violence and intolerance.

Consider that 100 years ago, it was secular regimes that were attacking religious communities and with substantially greater violence than we have seen since 9/11. In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, millions of Christian Armenians and Greek Orthodox were either expelled from Anatolia or slaughtered by the Nationalist zealots of an emerging Turkish state which went on to abolish religious education in schools and promote atheism as a component of the secular state. As the Russian autocracy collapsed, it too led to an orgy of violence in which religious communities, notably the Jews and Christians were targeted by the Bolsheviks, just as a consolidation of Communist rule involved the demolition of churches across the USSR. A violent anti-clerical movement was a central feature of the Republic in Spain in the 1930s, just as the suppression of religion in China in the 1940s was extended in the 1950s to Tibet, while atheism became a key feature of the autocracy in Albania while the Catholic church was viewed with deep suspicion in Eastern European countries like Poland.

It may be that religion, if it has been resurgent as an organized force, as it has been in Poland (my earlier post drew attention to this phenomenon in Nigeria, Uganda and Russia), has found a new space in which to grow because of the failures of previous secular regimes to provide jobs, to cleanse the state of corruption, even to provide the 'people' with a sense of shared entitlement and belonging. This is a key theme in a short but fascinating book by Michael Walzer, The Paradox of Liberation (Yale University Press, 2015) in which Walzer tries to understand how three states emerged from a 'national liberation' struggle to erect secular/socialist/humanitarian governments, only to be overtaken decades later by religious movements that appear to contradict what the founders of the state intended -the examples being Israel, Algeria and India.

It has been argued for some years now that political Islam grew in the Middle East as a response to the failures of Arab liberalism, socialism and nationalism, yet it is clear that if there has been a resurgence of Islam, it has been a fractured attempt to re-mould the state and on present evidence is a dismal failure. Even in the case of Saudi Arabia which has now lasted for the best part of a century, the Royal Family is still detested in the Hejaz and in the east, while the export of its horrible creed across the world has alienated Muslims from each other as much as the societies in which they live.
We have also seen how a militant Christianity in the USA in recent times may have emerged as a religious response to the fear of Communism, while modernization in the form of film, tv and now social media excited the 'moral majority' to campaign politically for reactionary policies, and on issues such as abortion -if not divorce and homosexuality- has earned some success, with the additional point that Presidential candidates appear to be obliged to make public their religious views as if it were not possible to be selected, let alone elected, if one does not proclaim a belief in the Christian God.

But tolerance to have any meaning must work both ways, and what I find dispiriting in these times, is an intolerance on the part of those who dismiss religion out of hand as a concoction of fables about a sky-fairy and some non-existent after-life, and on the other side an organized group who not only believe they are in exclusive possession of the truth, but also claim religious justification when they choose to murder. My generation inherited a world in which we were determined that mass murder -any murder- would no longer be justified for reasons of 'race' religion sexuality or ideology, and it appears we have failed, either because it is in human nature to be bad, or because bad things happen when we create the permissive environment in which it becomes possible to behave badly with impunity, even if there are occasional moments of hope, such as the conviction of Radovan Karadzic.

What worries me most is this 'permissive environment' in which the state allows bad things to happen, because once the law is ignored on one aspect of social relations, it encourages law-breaking elsewhere, and that is the road to perdition.

[trish]

I don't think this debate needs to delve too deeply into our personal situations, I would prefer to debate the broader issue which is the relationship between organized religion and society, not least because at the present juncture there is such a terribly real connection between organized religion and violence and intolerance.

Consider that 100 years ago, it was secular regimes that were attacking religious communities and with substantially greater violence than we have seen since 9/11. In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, millions of Christian Armenians and Greek Orthodox were either expelled from Anatolia or slaughtered by the Nationalist zealots of an emerging Turkish state which went on to abolish religious education in schools and promote atheism as a component of the secular state. As the Russian autocracy collapsed, it too led to an orgy of violence in which religious communities, notably the Jews and Christians were targeted by the Bolsheviks, just as a consolidation of Communist rule involved the demolition of churches across the USSR. A violent anti-clerical movement was a central feature of the Republic in Spain in the 1930s, just as the suppression of religion in China in the 1940s was extended in the 1950s to Tibet, while atheism became a key feature of the autocracy in Albania while the Catholic church was viewed with deep suspicion in Eastern European countries like Poland.

It may be that religion, if it has been resurgent as an organized force, as it has been in Poland (my earlier post drew attention to this phenomenon in Nigeria, Uganda and Russia), has found a new space in which to grow because of the failures of previous secular regimes to provide jobs, to cleanse the state of corruption, even to provide the 'people' with a sense of shared entitlement and belonging. This is a key theme in a short but fascinating book by Michael Walzer, The Paradox of Liberation (Yale University Press, 2015) in which Walzer tries to understand how three states emerged from a 'national liberation' struggle to erect secular/socialist/humanitarian governments, only to be overtaken decades later by religious movements that appear to contradict what the founders of the state intended -the examples being Israel, Algeria and India.

It has been argued for some years now that political Islam grew in the Middle East as a response to the failures of Arab liberalism, socialism and nationalism, yet it is clear that if there has been a resurgence of Islam, it has been a fractured attempt to re-mould the state and on present evidence is a dismal failure. Even in the case of Saudi Arabia which has now lasted for the best part of a century, the Royal Family is still detested in the Hejaz and in the east, while the export of its horrible creed across the world has alienated Muslims from each other as much as the societies in which they live.
We have also seen how a militant Christianity in the USA in recent times may have emerged as a religious response to the fear of Communism, while modernization in the form of film, tv and now social media excited the 'moral majority' to campaign politically for reactionary policies, and on issues such as abortion -if not divorce and homosexuality- has earned some success, with the additional point that Presidential candidates appear to be obliged to make public their religious views as if it were not possible to be selected, let alone elected, if one does not proclaim a belief in the Christian God.

But tolerance to have any meaning must work both ways, and what I find dispiriting in these times, is an intolerance on the part of those who dismiss religion out of hand as a concoction of fables about a sky-fairy and some non-existent after-life, and on the other side an organized group who not only believe they are in exclusive possession of the truth, but also claim religious justification when they choose to murder. My generation inherited a world in which we were determined that mass murder -any murder- would no longer be justified for reasons of 'race' religion sexuality or ideology, and it appears we have failed, either because it is in human nature to be bad, or because bad things happen when we create the permissive environment in which it becomes possible to behave badly with impunity, even if there are occasional moments of hope, such as the conviction of Radovan Karadzic.

What worries me most is this 'permissive environment' in which the state allows bad things to happen, because once the law is ignored on one aspect of social relations, it encourages law-breaking elsewhere, and that is the road to perdition.
You’re the historian and what you say about the reasons for the resurgence of religion in regions where there had been violent attempts to eradicate it ring true. Not only the violence, but the economic and political failures of secular, nationalist regimes have left a vacuum that religion and tribalism rushed back in to fill. I’ll be sure to check out Michael Walzer’s book, thanks for the reference.

Not being a historian myself, I don’t have much to add to the general argument. As a citizen of the U.S. I might comment that McCarthyism may have made some contribution to the stranglehold evangelicalism has had and still has on American politics, but I don’t really see it as a major contribution. My opinion is that this strange relationship Americans have with religion is much older than the fear of Godless communism. Consider the Puritans, the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist movement, the Mormon movement, the Bible Belt, the early traveling evangelists who later took over huge swaths of radio bandwidth, the hoopla over the Scopes Trial etc. It was all already there for McCarthy to exploit. Presidential candidates have always had to flout not just their Christianity but their Protestantism. Kennedy’s Catholicism was an issue when he ran. Only recently is organized religion in America somewhat on the wane (at least among young people) and concomitant with that we find tolerance of various sexual orientations and identifications among young people. Even Bernie Sanders’ nod to Judaism hasn’t got a lot of press - yet.

There is a part of religion that is indeed a concoction of sky-fairy fables that promise eternal bliss and threaten eternal pain. Unfortunately, at least here in the U.S., these parts are more important than the actual practice of going to Church, communing with the congregation in worship, serving to help the poor in one’s community etc. Every time a city fails to pass an anti-homosexuality law, or a school board throws out an attempt to establish a creationist biology curriculum, Pat Robertson or some other Evangelical preacher warns that God will punish us. In this decade Christian ministers have told us that various hurricanes, tornados and plagues were divine retribution. This part of religion would be easy to dismiss, if it weren’t so galling...but dismiss it I do.

There is a part of religion I don’t dismiss: the practices that tie people together (which I touched upon in my prior post). If only religious practitioners could separate the practices that bind people to one another from the silly and inane beliefs that dissuade, perpetuate fear, resentment and hatred.

Reciprocally, atheists could do what? It’s difficult to be tolerant of the beliefs we are urged to accept as literal truths, when as literal claims they’re false. We could try, perhaps, to argue the merits of those claims as metaphors; but not being believers, that’s not really our job: it’s a job for the clergy. We can’t really embrace the practices of religion (though I have explained in the last post how I have done so in various personal setting) because they are not our practices. But we can be tolerant of those practices; and I think that by and large most atheists are tolerant of the practices - if not the fables - of the religious communities in which they find themselves. We say "Happy Holidays" we paint Easter Eggs with our children. We even sometimes say, "Bless you" when somebody sneezes.

[nitron]

What does God fearing mean if you are a Buddhist, Jane, Hindu, or Taoist ? Perhaps there is a type of Karma rooted in a more subtle patchwork, that could be applied as retribution and Justice...Mirroring the "God fearing", old Testament equivalent to the eastern non monotheistic stuff.

[hippifried]

What does God fearing mean if you are a Buddhist, Jane, Hindu, or Taoist ? Perhaps there is a type of Karma rooted in a more subtle patchwork, that could be applied as retribution and Justice...Mirroring the "God fearing", old Testament equivalent to the eastern non monotheistic stuff.

Nothing. It doesn't have much meaning to Jews or Catholics or Muslims either. What we see as terror of a vengeful deity is the product of Protestant reformation.

[martin48]

We seem to have stepped into the area of morality. “God is dead, so all hell breaks lose”

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
Albert Einstein


Regardless of where you believe morals innately come from, the idea that you behave in a good way to either achieve a celestial reward or to avoid eternal suffering is grossly immoral. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is hardly the “good book” it claims to be. It’s full of genocide, sacrifice, murder, mayhem, slavery, rape, incest, not taking accountability for your own shortcomings and much, much more. This is supposedly the holy word of god, and it’s fundamentally evil.
I don’t need to read a 2-3 thousand year old book to tell me that it’s wrong to kill someone. I don’t need a book to tell me that cheating on my spouse is not a good thing. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that I go out raping, pillaging and killing people because I have no morals without the Bible. The thought is ridiculous to an extreme, but it’s unfortunately not that uncommon.
A lot of believers find it impossible to accept that morality is something innate in the human species and that it doesn’t exist because of a Bronze Age set of rules says so. The fact of the matter is that many of the “10 Commandments” existed long before the Jewish people did, and they’re hardly unique to the Jews. In fact, early records put some of the 10 commandments hundreds of years before the Jews were around. They’re simply basic human principles.
You don’t have to think too hard to understand the principles for an overall morality. You see evidence of it in the animal kingdom, so it’s not something that is strictly exclusive to human beings. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Wolves, Dolphins, Whales and other high-brained animals all exhibit some forms of societal morals, and it’s for the same reason that humans do. As humans evolved, they recognized that survival was much more likely if they came together as groups. In order to function as a group, certain things had to be understood. Basic human morality stems from the idea of avoiding harm and collectively focuses on the good of the group instead of the will of an individual. The idea of individual property that belonged to one specific person didn’t evolve until much, much later. The tribe communally owned things and shared them as needed with others. They didn’t kill each other because they depended on each other for their very lives. The infant mortality rate was so high in some areas that they avoided intentionally killing children. It’s the foundation of human morality completely separated from the concept of an overpowering god. God simply did not create human morality – humans created religious morality – and ironically the laws attributed to god tended to follow the customs that were already in practice by the people who dictated them, and they demonized the behavior of that particular culture’s territorial enemies.


BTW --- I still feel it odd to have these discussions on a porn site. Where's the morality in that?

[buttslinger]

I was kind of perplexed when first Trish then Stavros kind of poo pooed Hippifried's morals clause.
Then it dawned on me that when it comes to morals, Stavros and Trish have found themselves on the WRONG side of the moral fence!! I honestly doubt whether most people here have any idea what that's like. How many of us are UNWELCOME in Church?????????
I must say, though, despite their sick perverted needs and deeds they do talk good, and make sense sometimes.

[trish]

I was kind of perplexed when first Trish then Stavros kind of poo pooed Hippifried's morals clause.
Then it dawned on me that when it comes to morals, Stavros and Trish have found themselves on the WRONG side of the moral fence!! I honestly doubt whether most people here have any idea what that's like. How many of us are UNWELCOME in Church?????????
I must say, though, despite their sick perverted needs and deeds they do talk good, and make sense sometimes.
I don't recall 'poo pooing' (nor when I look back over the last few pages can I find where I 'poo pooed') Hippiefried's 'moral clause' (by which I assume you mean the 'Golden Rule'). I simply made no comment directly relating to it, basically because 1) I have no opinion on whether the Golden Rule is innate or not and 2) that the Golden Rule is good moral advice is so obvious no comment is required.

As to what you mean by the "WRONG side of the moral fence" you'll have to elaborate.

[martin48]

"WRONG side of the moral fence"

Just trying to get this site back to its roots

[trish]

"WRONG side of the moral fence"

Just trying to get this site back to its roots






nice root

[Laphroaig]

I don't recall 'poo pooing'

:D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E

[buttslinger]

As to what you mean by the "WRONG side of the moral fence" you'll have to elaborate.
Until you post photos, I'll just have to use my imagination.

Why are you people arguing with the world, the world is PERFECT. Even with it's flaws.
I can prove it.
There.

[trish]

The World clarifies it's position when you engage it in argument and it thereby imparts its perfection.

[buttslinger]

The World clarifies it's position when you engage it in argument and it thereby imparts its perfection.
God clarifies His position when you detach your self from the World.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8

[martin48]

I did post a photo which left little to the imagination, but didn't seem to add much to the debate!


As to what you mean by the "WRONG side of the moral fence" you'll have to elaborate.
Until you post photos, I'll just have to use my imagination.

Why are you people arguing with the world, the world is PERFECT. Even with it's flaws.
I can prove it.
There.

[Stavros]

We seem to have stepped into the area of morality. “God is dead, so all hell breaks lose”

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
Albert Einstein


Regardless of where you believe morals innately come from, the idea that you behave in a good way to either achieve a celestial reward or to avoid eternal suffering is grossly immoral. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is hardly the “good book” it claims to be. It’s full of genocide, sacrifice, murder, mayhem, slavery, rape, incest, not taking accountability for your own shortcomings and much, much more. This is supposedly the holy word of god, and it’s fundamentally evil.
I don’t need to read a 2-3 thousand year old book to tell me that it’s wrong to kill someone. I don’t need a book to tell me that cheating on my spouse is not a good thing. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that I go out raping, pillaging and killing people because I have no morals without the Bible. The thought is ridiculous to an extreme, but it’s unfortunately not that uncommon.
A lot of believers find it impossible to accept that morality is something innate in the human species and that it doesn’t exist because of a Bronze Age set of rules says so. The fact of the matter is that many of the “10 Commandments” existed long before the Jewish people did, and they’re hardly unique to the Jews. In fact, early records put some of the 10 commandments hundreds of years before the Jews were around. They’re simply basic human principles.
You don’t have to think too hard to understand the principles for an overall morality. You see evidence of it in the animal kingdom, so it’s not something that is strictly exclusive to human beings. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Wolves, Dolphins, Whales and other high-brained animals all exhibit some forms of societal morals, and it’s for the same reason that humans do. As humans evolved, they recognized that survival was much more likely if they came together as groups. In order to function as a group, certain things had to be understood. Basic human morality stems from the idea of avoiding harm and collectively focuses on the good of the group instead of the will of an individual. The idea of individual property that belonged to one specific person didn’t evolve until much, much later. The tribe communally owned things and shared them as needed with others. They didn’t kill each other because they depended on each other for their very lives. The infant mortality rate was so high in some areas that they avoided intentionally killing children. It’s the foundation of human morality completely separated from the concept of an overpowering god. God simply did not create human morality – humans created religious morality – and ironically the laws attributed to god tended to follow the customs that were already in practice by the people who dictated them, and they demonized the behavior of that particular culture’s territorial enemies.


BTW --- I still feel it odd to have these discussions on a porn site. Where's the morality in that?

Although I agree with a lot, indeed most of what you write, there is a gaping hole in your argument -if what you say about morals is true, why have human societies developed such elaborate religious systems of belief that make moral judgements about what it is right and wrong to believe, why some activities are good or bad, what is selfish behaviour and what is good for society as a whole? Why are there so many rituals in religion based around times of the week, or year; or recollections of and symbolic repetitions of sacrifice, or phenomenal events or shows of reverence for individuals long dead? Why are there so many detailed lists of rules on sexual behaviour, on diet, and on issues related to kinship and property? If we do not need a religion or its 'sacred texts' -let alone its clerics- to tell us how to live and what to believe, why have religions been so fundamental to the human experience?

There is no simple answer to this, and attempts to answer it range far and wide. There is, for example, the evidence from archaeology and anthropology which suggests that rules on sexual behaviour became fundamental to human existence when early humans -possibly through their mating with neanderthals and other humanoids- realised that unrestricted sexual behaviour led to the propagation of sexually transmitted diseases with all its complications and death; that procreation within the family led to genetic deterioation and thus threatened the very survival of the family and the wider community. Religious thought and practice at this level imposed a group-based moral code on individuals to prevent the extinction of the group, because individuals did apparently need to be warned off the perils of sexual temptation and an apocalyptic religious verse in this case may actually have been close to the truth even if the subsequent journey to heaven or hell is not. But here one notes what a Dante scholar once wrote about the Inferno, the Italian poet's depiction of a journey through Hell -that it was not written as a warning of what might come but a chastening experience of what actually exists, in the here and now.

Another perspective from anthropology and philosophy formed part of the early work of Lévi-Strauss for whom the study of Amazonian myths and rituals led him to a comparative study of language and ritual, whether it was the various ways in which humans denote their kinship through language or the reason why humans eat cooked as well as raw food. Embedded in the human experience there may be structural affinities with all humans- Lévi-Strauss was influenced by Roman Jakobson just as in recent years Habermas has taken this aspect of language and behaviour further in an attempt to discern in human societies a 'universal pragmatics'. What these studies tend to look at is what it is that unites humans, but they could just as well engage in comparative theology to discern what it is that unites all the major religions, where surely the emphasis on a rule-based form of behaviour is the most common, for religions appear to come laden with rules.

If these issues are important, it may be because of the way in which human societies have changed since the Neolithic. The transition from a nomadic to a sedentary life has not been complete, but one notes that the Bedouin of the Middle East always considered themselves superior to sedentary farmers, associating their freedom of movement with freedom from government and the entrapments of taxation and conscription even if these days they participate in the modern state. When Cain killed Abel, it was a sedentary farmer growing crops with no animals to sacrifice, murdering his nomadic brother, who did. Embedded in that confrontation the modern world comes alive in which two brothers fall apart over resentment, and what it is that each other does or does not possess. Religion thus becomes in this context the rule-book that establishes what property rights are in a society and culture where possession matters, and once you have a stability of possession -'this land is my land'- you can see the development of a sense of belonging, and by extension group identity, an identity buttressed by shared beliefs, shared rituals, and shared outcomes of work. Out of that too, must come social stratification of the kind that enables some crafty humans not to work for a living, but to 're-invent' themselves as Kings, or Pharaohs and thus get other people to feed them and clothe them.

In other words, while we may not agree on the reasons why, it is clear that elaborate religious thought and behaviour has indeed been the means whereby crucial rules on sexual behaviour, diet, property rights and kinship have been developed to maintain the species. To wish all that away because we can see how obvious morals are without the apparatus of religion, seems to me to wish away thousands of years of culture that may yet have more to tell us about who we are and why we are asked to 'fear god' or 'love god' or ignore God altogether. Because ultimately it is about us, and how we have used language to seek dominion over the earth -and each other.

[martin48]

A few thoughts

Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.


Was religion (which grew out of the proto-humans in Africa – sorry, but we are all descended from Africans) was a response to fear. We, as a unique species, were self-conscious, had long-term memories, and above all had language that could express abstract thoughts and allow oral traditions to develop. These developing abilities of proto-humans were a double-edge sword. On the one hand, they aided their chances of surviving in a cruel and unpredictable world. They helped each successive generation to build upon the knowledge base of their ancestors.

Religions were created to give people a feeling of security in an insecure world, and a feeling of control over the environment where there was little control.

During our evolution from proto-human to homo sapiens, we developed questions about ourselves and our environment:

What controlled the seasonal cycles of nature - the daily motion of the sun; the motion of the stars, the passing of the seasons, etc.

What controlled their environment - what or who caused floods, rains, dry spells, storms?

What controls fertility -- of the tribe, its animals, and its crops?

What system of morality would best promote the success of the tribe?

And above all: what happens to us after we die?

Living in a pre-scientific society, people had no way to resolve these questions.
But the need for answers (particularly to the last question) were so important that some response was required, even if they were merely based on hunches. Some people within the tribe invented answers based on their personal guesses. Thus developed:

The first religious belief system,

The first priesthood,

The first set of rituals to appease the Goddess – usually a female deity (there lies fertility),


Other rituals to control fertility and other aspects of the environment,

A set of behavioral expectations for members of the tribe, and

A set of moral truths to govern human behavior.

These formed an oral tradition which was disseminated among the members of the tribe and was taught to each new generation. Much later, after writing developed, the beliefs were generally recorded in written form. A major loss of flexibility resulted. Oral traditions can evolve over time; written documents tend to be more permanent.

Unfortunately, because these belief systems were based on hunches, the various religions that developed in different areas of the world were, and remain, different. Their teachings are in conflict with each other. Because the followers of most religions considered their beliefs to be derived directly from God, they cannot be easily changed. Thus, inter-religious compromise is difficult or impossible.

Religious texts are often ambiguous, so divisions developed within religions. Different denominations, schools, or traditions have derived different meanings from the same texts. Thus were laid the foundations for inter-religious and intra-religious conflict.

[trish]

In other words, while we may not agree on the reasons why, it is clear that elaborate religious thought and behaviour has indeed been the means whereby crucial rules on sexual behaviour, diet, property rights and kinship have been developed to maintain the species. To wish all that away because we can see how obvious morals are without the apparatus of religion, seems to me to wish away thousands of years of culture that may yet have more to tell us about who we are and why we are asked to 'fear god' or 'love god' or ignore God altogether. Because ultimately it is about us, and how we have used language to seek dominion over the earth -and each other.
The various religious proscriptions restricting human sexuality may have (and may still) somewhat function to minimize the transmission of disease, maximize fertility and the chances of tribal survival through the generations. If so, nevertheless “because God says so” is not the reason they function in this way. That “diseases are caused by demons or sent by angry gods” is not a viable hypothesis. If we wish to refine and develop more effective prophylactic behaviors and measures against the spread of disease, we need to understand (indeed we do understand) the real causes of disease. The question then becomes, is it still moral to use the fear of God as a way to enforce (or at least encourage) safer sexual practices? I think not.

God was never a real hypothesis, for the hypothesis of His existence entails nothing without additional ad-hoc assumptions. “God exists” doesn’t entail that a woman shouldn’t cuckold her husband. “God exists and He doesn’t want women to cuckold their husbands and if you disobey Him you will be eternally punished” does. You need some variant of all three components to get the entailment. Though the proscriptions of religion may have survived and evolved to serve a useful function for the tribe, they are as ad-hoc as thumbs and appendices. Some proscriptions still function well and some no longer serve any function at all. Some may even misfire and do real damage. Other than the shape they are given by their social evolution and the fiction that they spring from a common source (the will of the gods) the laws of religion have no coherence; certainly no logical coherence.

Fear of God was always just a way to motivate people to follow the laws of the tribe (whether those laws serve the tribe well or not). This is not to say the history of religion isn’t valuable. Just because we choose now not to follow an ancient collection of tribal laws doesn’t mean we have to forget who we were and from where we came. To appreciate our culture and understand our history, we don’t have to believe the same silly things our ancestors believed or live by the same standards. Indeed, if we wish to propagate our culture into the future, we have to acknowledge that some of our old ideas and practices were wrong and obstructive. We don’t have to burn our history books or destroy our religious texts and artifacts; but neither do we have to furnish our moral space with uncomfortable antiques.

[buttslinger]

Whoa, you guys are not talking God, you're talking SOCIETY.
If I were up on that cross looking down at the crowd, I might have thought...
"Gee, maybe they weren't ready for God yet...."
Who wouldn't?
JESUS!!!! That's who!!!!!!
Even on his worst day he was enlightened.
Is eternal peace an illusion???
Was all that homework I did in school a complete waste of time?

It wouldn't be too hard to "play" this crowd, if it amused me I could write a post that got 10 thumbs up or 10 thumbs down. The only people who really agree with gays and trannys are other gays and trannys. WORD!!! (uh oh, thumbs down, Claudius)

It hurts my eyes to look up directly into the sun, but I'm glad it there, warming us all.
The Universe has one God,
The World has one KING..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj0Rz-uP4Mk

[trish]

Even on his worst day he was enlightened.Was that the day he cursed a tree for not bearing him a fig?

[buttslinger]

Was that the day he cursed a tree for not bearing him a fig?

Yes. There IS a time issue here, we can't wait around forever to be served by a retarded fruit tree.
Is this a tree-hugger thing?

[fred41]

It would suit me more to say "The universe IS God"
...than to say "The universe has one God".

[buttslinger]

It would suit me more to say "The universe IS God"
...than to say "The universe has one God".

I see God as the speeding bullet on yon horizon.
And Jesus says God appears different as your moments of clarity improve.
And yeah, Fred, I scored my latest batch of herb at the foot of the Exorcist Steps in Georgetown. It's legal there now.

[fred41]

I see God as the speeding bullet on yon horizon.
And Jesus says God appears different as your moments of clarity improve.
And yeah, Fred, I scored my latest batch of herb at the foot of the Exorcist Steps in Georgetown. It's legal there now.

I'm not sure if he was quoted as saying that...lol...but -
it really doesn't matter, does it?
I take it you're a believer no?
What actual difference would it seriously make if you weren't?
Anyways...thumbs up for scoring and in a cool spot...I'm nursing what I got left because I lost a connection.

[buttslinger]

I'm not sure if he was quoted as saying that...lol...but -
it really doesn't matter, does it?
I take it you're a believer no?
What actual difference would it seriously make if you weren't?
Anyways...thumbs up for scoring and in a cool spot...I'm nursing what I got left because I lost a connection.

There are seven and a half billion different religions, yes. And I am one of them.
.......maybe not the best.............butt....
I want Hillary to make those sour-grape republicans give me my weed in accordance with the laws of these united states!!!!!

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=martin48;1684333]
A few thoughts

Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.
-While appearing to behave in ways similar to humans, I think animals are aware of their own mortality, which is why they take risk-avoidance strategies to avoid deathly situations, but I am not sure that the rituals animals use in mating, in hunting in risk-avoidance and so on, we would 'normally associate with religion' because among other things, we associate religion with the soul, and we cannot know if animals know or believe they have souls, this is a weak comparison and a weak argument.

Was religion (which grew out of the proto-humans in Africa –
sorry, but we are all descended from Africans [this is debatable as the evidence is still so limited])
was a response to fear. We, as a unique species, were self-conscious, had long-term memories, and above all had language that could express abstract thoughts and allow oral traditions to develop. These developing abilities of proto-humans were a double-edge sword. On the one hand, they aided their chances of surviving in a cruel and unpredictable world. They helped each successive generation to build upon the knowledge base of their ancestors.
-Fear must be an element, but so too is joy and something called glory. Among the rituals of sacrifice which exist in many pagan and monotheist religions, are festivals of joy which celebrate life- the bacchanal, the carnival, and these, moreover, were often -in some senses, such as Carnival in Catholic countries still are- brief moments when all the rules that bind society together can be transgressed, but without threatening the integrity of the bonds -thus men become women, women become possessed, humans take on animal form, strange brews are imbibed. Religions that bind social groups for security can also enjoy themselves.

A set of moral truths to govern human behavior.
These formed an oral tradition which was disseminated among the members of the tribe and was taught to each new generation. Much later, after writing developed, the beliefs were generally recorded in written form. A major loss of flexibility resulted. Oral traditions can evolve over time; written documents tend to be more permanent.
-If the development of writing enabled existing narratives via oral poems and recitations to become sacred texts, the one thing this did not lead to was 'a major loss of flexibility', if anything, writing merely establishes the extent to which existing oral traditions are contested, both at the time, and in succeeding centuries. Textual analysis of scripture has been one of the most enduring headaches for believers and scholars and explains centuries of exegesis by Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars out of which no consensus has been met on fundamental issues and also explains the schisms within those religions. Scholars with Hebrew or Arabic texts without diacritical marks are still arguing over the precise definition of words which might be past, present or future tense. Jacques Derrida built an entire philosophy on the argument that texts are unstable and you only need to consider the fate of Islam since 9/11 to know how fluid and controversial the Quran is. But what is just as important is that the ability of religions based on sacred texts to survive for so long may be based precisely on the flexible use of those texts in different times, and that the pursuit of the original meaning by fundamentalists is doomed because the precise contexts of a Quranic revelation or the words of Jesus have been lost and cannot be retrieved.

Unfortunately, because these belief systems were based on hunches, the various religions that developed in different areas of the world were, and remain, different. Their teachings are in conflict with each other. Because the followers of most religions considered their beliefs to be derived directly from God, they cannot be easily changed. Thus, inter-religious compromise is difficult or impossible.
-I wonder how different religions are from each other, and they are not based on hunches but on the firm beliefs people had at the time. I am not suggesting as is implicit in some theories of languages or pragmatics, that there is a syncretic project to be realised here, and if there were it would be intellectual and synthetic, yet most religions share a common concern with the way the past, the present and the future are linked; they prescribe behaviour on the basis of moral judgement; they have central concerns such as fertility and reproduction, dietary regulations and notions of kinship and/or gender role; they attempt to explain natural phenomena as supernatural in force and origin. They appear to be hostile to science, largely because modern science undermines their claims about the supernatural origin of things and in doing so challenges structures of authority.

I think that at the point where humans gathered together in social formations which brought together people not linked by blood relations, we have the beginning of politics, the distribution of power as a relationship of authority, and the concept of leadership, but also as a result of that, stratified societies. Religion in this context enables articulate people, charismatic people, people known to be wise, powers which result in status be it priest, king, pharoah. It may not be that the disciples believed Jesus was literally the son of God but that he had such charisma and awe that it was 'as if' he was the son of God, and in the sense that Jesus himself used it, we are all sons/children of God anyway so that to separate out one man as divine was allegorical rather than factual, just as Muhammad always insisted he was merely human like the rest of us while later Muslims have attempted to prove he was made divine by his mission (Muhammad splitting the moon is an obvious example). I am not sure there is a lot to be said here other than to suggest that historians of politics -in Europe and the US- tend to place more emphasis on the Greek heritage through Plato and Aristotle, seeing the emergence of the Christian empires as something of a diversion, so that while Aquinas and Augustine will appear in histories of political thought, the tendency is to leap from Plato to Machiavelli as if nothing really interesting happened in between, or because the concepts of citizenship that do emerge in the Christian era look rather too much like servile obedience to the Pope 'or else', rather than as a positive contribution to the study of politics. A discussion for another thread.

[martin48]

"Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.
-While appearing to behave in ways similar to humans, I think animals are aware of their own mortality, which is why they take risk-avoidance strategies to avoid deathly situations, but I am not sure that the rituals animals use in mating, in hunting in risk-avoidance and so on, we would 'normally associate with religion' because among other things, we associate religion with the soul, and we cannot know if animals know or believe they have souls, this is a weak comparison and a weak argument."

The anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote in his book Denial of Death that nonhuman animals know nothing about dying: “The knowledge of death is reflective and conceptual, and animals are spared it.” There are scenes repeated endless on the internet of animals seemingly being emotional on a mate's death. We need to be careful in assigning anthropomorphic qualities.

[martin48]

Was religion (which grew out of the proto-humans in Africa –
sorry, but we are all descended from Africans [this is debatable as the evidence is still so limited])

The "Out of Africa" theory is the most widely accepted model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans. The theory argues for the African origins of modern humans, who left Africa in a single wave of migration, which populated the world, replacing older human species.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559480


But this is science so it’s our current best guess given the available evidence.

[Stavros]

"Many other animals exhibit altruistic behaviour, social hierarchies, seemingly meaningless rituals and other aspects, which we would normally associate with religion. So what makes us different? May be the knowledge of our own mortality. This knowledge produces an unbearable emotional drain.
-While appearing to behave in ways similar to humans, I think animals are aware of their own mortality, which is why they take risk-avoidance strategies to avoid deathly situations, but I am not sure that the rituals animals use in mating, in hunting in risk-avoidance and so on, we would 'normally associate with religion' because among other things, we associate religion with the soul, and we cannot know if animals know or believe they have souls, this is a weak comparison and a weak argument."

The anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote in his book Denial of Death that nonhuman animals know nothing about dying: “The knowledge of death is reflective and conceptual, and animals are spared it.” There are scenes repeated endless on the internet of animals seemingly being emotional on a mate's death. We need to be careful in assigning anthropomorphic qualities.

We need to be careful in assigning anthropomorphic qualities.
-Not to labour it, but this was what you did. As we cannot know, this is all speculation.

[martin48]

Sorry, you have lost me. I urged caution but you label me as being definitive.

[nitron]

The universe , and all it's unholy creations: Atoms, fungus , ai's and gods.
I fear such things.

[trish]

That's like the kidney being fearful of the body and all its squishy constituents: the cells, the liver, the lungs and the spine.

[Stavros]

The universe , and all it's unholy creations: Atoms, fungus , ai's and gods.
I fear such things.

I wonder if we have lost the wonder of seeing the night sky as it 'is' rather than as it is. The last time I was in Canada we went to a remote location in northern Ontario, and at night the sky was a fabulous curtain of stars that can only strike awe into the mind of man. It is from this astonishing sight that so much about human life on earth and 'up there', in past present and future has been created, derived, imagined and probed, that without it we either rely on films and tv, or probably don't think about it at all, because we cannot see it with the naked eye. For most people who live as I do in urban areas, the best you can hope for from the night sky is the Moon, maybe the vague outline of the Plough. It does not automatically follow that seeing stars invokes the need or belief in a superior creator but perhaps it does offer a corrective to the arrogance of humans who believe themselves superior to everything else. The latest shots from Jupiter, in addition to its sounds, reminds us that we are fortunate to live in a quiet neighbourhood of the universe, and that however much power we acquire, there is always going to be something 'out there' more powerful than ourselves.

[fred41]

Speaking for myself, the feeling of wonder hasn't been lost. If anything, it's stronger.
As I view the vast magnificence, with my present day eyes, I am also reminded of what I am part of...and I've never felt so certain and unafraid...and happy.

[fred41]

That's like the kidney being fearful of the body and all its squishy constituents: the cells, the liver, the lungs and the spine.

Nail on the head.
You have the advantage of grasping some of the concepts that the scientific community's scratching the surface of. I am just content to see it as an endless jigsaw puzzle - I will never see solved, but occasionally a hint of a picture is completed, which I may not completely understand, but gives me a sense of clarity of 'being'.
It's as if, for the blink of an eye, I have been shown the picture on the cover of the box...but I didn't have my reading glasses on...not enough to see clearly or fully understand, but enough to gain a feeling of security.
We may not be cogs or gears, but at the very least we are perhaps molecules in the metal of those gears.
It's beautiful.

[Stavros]

Jediism, the worship of the mythology of Star Wars, is not a religion, the Charity Commission has ruled.

The commission rejected an application to grant charitable status to The Temple of the Jedi Order.

It said Jediism did not "promote moral or ethical improvement" for charity law purposes in England and Wales.
In the 2011 census, 177,000 people declared themselves Jedi under the religion section, making it the the seventh most popular religion.
It has more adherents than Rastafarians and Jains, according to the census.
But the number of Jedis fell sharply from 2001, when 390,000 people said they were followers of The Force.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526

May the sauce be with you...

[bluesoul]

That's like the kidney being fearful of the body and all its squishy constituents: the cells, the liver, the lungs and the spine.

maybe not fear, but the kidney should (if possible) at the very least, be aware of what the other organs are up to. i don't know why, but i find the concept of everything being linked together quite beautiful and harmonic. i keep mine organs always up to date with the rest of my system.... i recommend you do too


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wphlv0ShcQ

[holzz]

There is no such thing as God. If so, i wouldn't be on this forum anyhow.

[sukumvit boy]

There is no such thing as God. If so, i wouldn't be on this forum anyhow.
:confused:986737

[sukumvit boy]

Jediism, the worship of the mythology of Star Wars, is not a religion, the Charity Commission has ruled.

The commission rejected an application to grant charitable status to The Temple of the Jedi Order.

It said Jediism did not "promote moral or ethical improvement" for charity law purposes in England and Wales.
In the 2011 census, 177,000 people declared themselves Jedi under the religion section, making it the the seventh most popular religion.
It has more adherents than Rastafarians and Jains, according to the census.
But the number of Jedis fell sharply from 2001, when 390,000 people said they were followers of The Force.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526

May the sauce be with you...

Speaking of strange religions ,The Church of the Subgenius ,has got to be one of them.

986738986739
I have seen that picture of the guy with the pipe many times over the years but never realized it was actually a "religion" until I stumbled across this recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
I see they appear to be headquartered in the US and Canada but in 1992 they were involved in a brouhaha in Bedfordshire,UK.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1995/02/08/holy-smoke-its-bob/592cb6c8-74f8-4eb3-b179-9641c152

[sukumvit boy]

Here are some interesting facts regarding the tax exempt status of Scientology as a 'religion'.
Here in the US it qualifies but in the UK the results are mixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country

[Stavros]

I view Scientology as a commercial enterprise rather than a religion, because the religion does not have a basic set of beliefs that define the religion, but offers a sequence of challenges through which a candidate must pass before being declared 'clear' which confers superior status on a member compared to someone who has just joined. Crucially, every stage of 'enlightenment' must be paid for, and the simple fact that in effect, you cannot 'become' a Scientologist without paying for it makes it a private club or commercial enterprise. There is no entry fee for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and so on.

More to the point, Mike Huckabee once declared that God's law is superior to the Constitution, stating in 2008

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
https://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

His view at the time was considered typical of the 'Evangelical Christian' movement but too marginal to be taken seriously, but he doubled down on his views in 2015 when he stated publicly

I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God," he said. "When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/mike-huckabee-god-election-2016-supreme-court/index.html

The passage of time has resulted in the very same people once believed to occupy the margins now occupying positions of influence in the White House, Congress, and most worrying of all, the judicial system.

Here is an almost excellent overview of the Evangelical movement, particularly interesting to read of the 'Know-Nothing Party' fearful of an 'invasion' of Roman Catholics as an example of the actual divisions within American Christian communities, carried forward to those who supported Jefferson and those afraid he was going to confiscate their Bibles. But what John Fea does not do is justify any connection between Evangelical Christians and the political system, he takes it as a given fact of American life, but in doing so has nothing to say to the millions with a different god or none at all.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/a-history-of-evangelical-fear/563558/

[Stavros]

I am not sure if I should fear God, but I fear for Pastor Paula White, the President's' Spiritual Advisor'. Here she is on a marathon rant about the victory God must bring to the Republican candidate, but it looks and sounds more like a pagan ritual staged by Tadeusz Kantor. She strikes the air with her fist as behind her, some dude in shorts and a towel on his arm walks up and down behind her, reading from I assume is a Book of Spells. I was expecting her to sacrifice a pigeon and examine its entrails, -if it happened they didn't record it. It also appears to be the case, that for all her prayers and invocations of Angels coming from Africa and South America, their trip was a waste of time. But hey, God's paying for it all, and bullshit is cheap in America these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67R3vqk-f3Y