Reply to Why do people stay religious?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why do people stay religious?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Maybe because they like it.  It feels good.  Most everyone else they know does it.

Do they really believe?  I doubt it.  I can see why people believed it 2,000 years ago, but how can anyone these days possibly believe that long ago, a guy who was actually God, had a mother who was a virgin.  He was later died by hanging on a cross, then came back to life and ultimately went up to the sky (heaven) to live with his father (God) and if you believe that, you’ll get to live forever just like him.   If you don’t, then you’ll burn forever, instead.

It’s a story, obviously.

There’s a great new 15 min video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdgVM0WGKg  on “Why intelligent people are leaving religion”. You can play it at high speed.

Here’s how it starts: “It’s becoming more common now.  You meet people who followed every rule and custom and they tell you ‘I don’t really believe anymore.’   They’re not angry about it.  They just tell you:  ‘I just left.’ Many are well read and curious people. People who ask questions.  People who listen carefully to the answers.”  
[/quote]

What religion teaches that you "go up to the sky" when you die? Or that you will literally "burn forever" if you don't believe all the things you just wrote? It isn't Catholicism or main stream Christianity, so which religion is it?[/quote]

AI:

Jesus warns in Mark 9:43 that it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, "into the fire that shall never be quenched". Similarly, Matthew 10:28 instructs believers to fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The imagery of unquenchable fire is also found in Matthew 25:41, where the wicked are sent into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Revelation 14:11 describes the torment of those who worship the beast: "And the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever".  Revelation 20:10 states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire.  The lake of fire is described as the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8, where the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars are cast[/quote]
There are centuries of post-Biblical texts and theological development/interpretation that inform religious thought and practice today. The fire and brimstone of the Bible [b]can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor[/b], or simply downplayed in favor of messages of love, grace, and peace. Asking AI for sources in Christianity about burning forever in hell isn't going to tell you how actual Catholics or mainstream Christians today teach or view heaven and hell or how they approach living a good life.[/quote]

[i]" can be (and often is) interpreted as metaphor,"[/i]

OK, but please answer me these questions:

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?[/quote]

- How can you tell the difference between what is metaphorical and what is literal?
[b]Emotional intelligence and critical thinking.[/b]

[/quote]

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.

[quote]- Who gets to make that determination, as interpretations are subjective?
[b]The people who holds the belief, with guidance from their religious leaders/clergy, determine what their religion means and how they interpret their religious texts. If you disagree, by all means, make the case for a different path, but misunderstanding and misdefining a person's beliefs isn't going to convince them that they're wrong; it's just going to make you look ignorant.[/b][/quote]

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe.  Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.

[quote]- What about the words written, other than their inconvenience since they are clearly not factual, is unclear? Are those not the words in the book?
[b]I allow for people to grow and change, for time to change societies and norms. Part of moving from a juvenile, literalist, black-and-white understanding of the world and of religion to one of complexity and nuance, is understanding that the Bible is God's gift to guide us in life, while recognizing that it is also of the time it was written. There are lessons we can learn from "outdated" or "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, even as we place the literal words in context of their times, through metaphor and interpretation. Most of mainstream Christianity today teaches the concept of Heaven and Hell not as literal paradise in the clouds or eternal torment and fire, but as connection and disconnection from God. The fact that [i]you [/i]are a Biblical literalist doesn't mean your understanding of Christianity is complete or correct.[/b][/quote]

OK and we agree here, but if you open it up to critical thinking, then you are going to have to entertain the spectrum of critical thought, not just the sliver that suits you.
[b]What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? Because it didn't lead me to atheism? My faith is not rigid; it can accept science and philosophy and all sorts of critical thought that atheists here want to pretend are incompatible with religion, because their definition of religion is based on fundamentalist/literalist Christianity, rather than the majority/mainstream/average person.[/b]

This is a strawman - no one here ever says someone doesn't believe what they say they believe. Just because YOU don't believe that preposterous crap doesn't mean others don't - and you know they do.
[b]PP at the start of this thread (let's call him PP1) is using Biblical literalists as a strawman to make claims about Christians generally. I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.[/b]

You and I agree that the bible is outdated. We just slightly disagree on how outdated. You think you are objecting to my positions with your answers, but to me they are clearly agreement that they are arcane, outdated concepts and no way to live a modern life. You're closer to my thinking than you are to the majority of believers I know. Maybe your journey will complete and you will realize it is all BS with no useful place in today's world, and does much more harm than good.
[b]I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.[/b][/quote]

Some comments:

[quote]What makes you think that I don't entertain the full spectrum of critical thought? [/quote]

Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter.

[quote] I'm not presenting a strawman by countering with the fact that mainstream Christians are not literalists who do not believe in the literal interpretation that PP1 is claiming.[/quote]

Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy?  Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

[quote]I don't think you understood me. I can believe that parts of the Bible are "of their time" without discounting the continued applicable lessons for modern life. Furthermore, life is not a one-way journey toward atheism. I tried atheism throughout middle school, high school, and college, and ultimately found my way back to religion.[/quote]

I am sure that is how you feel, but from my perspective your position is closer to atheism than trad Christianity in that we agree the bible should not be followed literally and is likely metaphorical.  You believe like Jefferson did.  And yes, that is a compliment.

[/quote]
Because you are literally criticizing the interpretations of others and claiming your own as the ones that matter. Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy? Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.
[b]I'm actually not saying that. I'm happy to criticize literalism; I think there is a lot to criticize there, both in their interpretation of the Bible and in their political lobbying. What I'm specifically responding to here is atheists on the thread presenting literalism as THE interpretation of Christianity.[/b]

[/quote]

So I will repeat the question you ignored the premise of: Are you claiming that there are no biblical literalists, or that literal biblical passages are not being used to try an influence both culture and public policy?  Because that would be a claim that is entirely impeachable.

[quote][b]Thank you, then. I'm glad we all know there's less daylight between mainstream Christianity and atheism than the rest of this forum would suggest.[/b][/quote]

Individually, people who think your way are generally not the problem.  Religion is a HUGE problem now, and a primary driver for the mess our world is in.  All religions, to be clear, not just yours.  You trying to claim some high ground for "mainstream christianity" as if it is quantifiable is a completely irrelevant position.  It's still a huge problem.  Just because you see it as a metaphorical model for personal values doesn't change that.

Think about it: a fake thing, a bronze age myth, with nearly no evidence it is true, costing people liberties and lives every day.

It's fkin CRAZY.  [/quote]

Where do you think the “liberties” of which you speak come from? [/quote]

Not from your presuppositional and therefore logically fallacious god.[/quote]

Very telling that you can’t answer the question.[/quote]

Oh bullsh*t. You know the question’s premise is nonsense.  Maybe we don’t know “where they came from”, maybe the came naturally as part of societal evolution (the most logical possibility IMHO) or maybe something else.  The point is there is no evidence your god exists so no reason to even discuss what comes from that until you show it does.

Very telling tjhat you’re resorting to petulant nonsense.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics