Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
#426 Old 29th Nov 2015 at 3:15 PM
Pretty much everyone nowadays miss the core concept of their beliefs. If people were to follow their holy texts as written, there would be a lot more wars and disagreements than there already is, because many people wouldn't be alowed to coexist with people of other beliefs.
Advertisement
Alchemist
#427 Old 29th Nov 2015 at 3:36 PM
I feel like the holy books have been misinterpreted and thus rewritten serveral times. The Islamic religion was brought into the world by force.
I also think it's hilarious that 2000 years a guy came to people telling he heard a voice in his head what he had to. Religion basically exists becuase of some schizophrenic people.

If you remember me, I'm awesome!
__________
Need help building? We'll help.
Top Secret Researcher
#428 Old 30th Nov 2015 at 7:02 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Johnny_Bravo
Then they're not Satanists but some idiots who think it's cool to claim they are.


Actually, the original meaning of the word "Satan" was 'opposer' (or 'that which opposes'). It was a general word, not a specific name. In fact, some of the uses of 'satan' in the early bible might actually refer to other archangels, talking about them in a way that would have been like, "God says this, and the opposition says this".

The Satanists we're referring to are people (probably atheistic or somewhere along those lines) who play an opposing role to the people who abuse the idea of religious freedom. It's very much in spirit with the original definition of the word.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Alchemist
#429 Old 30th Nov 2015 at 3:51 PM
Which makes me sure the stanic bible has been rewritten too, then.

If you remember me, I'm awesome!
__________
Need help building? We'll help.
Theorist
#430 Old 30th Nov 2015 at 10:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Johnny_Bravo
Which makes me sure the stanic bible has been rewritten too, then.


If it's the LaVey version of Satanism, it's more or less just plagiarized and inserts to support LaVey's weird carny spiel. That's not necessarily a criticism - the book's focus is really about encouraging people to indulge their egos and promoting the sort of post-hippie New Age hedonism he himself was into, so as a work of literature of its time it's entirely consistent with other similar books. Superficially Satanism and Scientology look pretty similar, just like I saw similarities between Satanism and my friends in their weird "bone everyone" Church of Isis (no relation to beheadings, totally about screwing people and lots of tarot cards as far as I could tell). I'm pretty sure it's all just all SoCal late 60s counterculture dressed up different ways, all with a focus on mentor figure-gurus and self-empowerment. Also, really terrible web design.

But seriously, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Satanism in 2015 is vastly different from the early 90s Satanism I was exposed to. In the early 90s LaVey was still alive, presumably there was still the sort of centralized philosophical tradition that exists when a religion's founder is still available for consultation. Since his death, "what Satanism means" is bound to change to meet the needs of other people, just like Christianity changes, or politics changes.
Theorist
#431 Old 1st Dec 2015 at 7:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by GabyBee
Why would I have to? I don't believe in any religion. That's it. I don't have any interest in pontificating on why I don't. I just don't.


I think I can kind of understand where Volvenom is coming from, as I guess I have pontificated on my lack of belief and could probably list a ton of bullet-point reasons which nobody cares about, so I won't. Perhaps Volvenom is just like me and can't help but sit around, thinking about stuff. I just can't shut it off, and perhaps that's why I worry so much, but I digress. I think it's good to sit around thinking about stuff. The more we think, the more we learn, the more we understand, is the key to solving problems.

I don't invest in mutual funds. I often think about why other people do invest in mutual funds. Perhaps I should learn what they know about mutual funds and decide if I should invest in them too.

I don't kill people. I do think about why other people kill. Maybe if I understand a bit more about how their minds work, I can avoid getting killed. Perhaps I could spot the warning signs quicker and prevent others from getting killed.

I don't eat tofu. I do think about why other people eat tofu. Perhaps they know of some amazing health benefit, and if I had that knowledge, maybe I would choose to eat it too.

I also don't watch Doctor Who. I do think about why so many people like to watch Doctor Who. Maybe if I learn what they know about Doctor Who, I'd watch it too. Maybe not.

In that same pattern, I don't so much think about why I don't believe, as it's obvious to me, but I've definitely expended a great deal of energy thinking about why other people do believe. My conclusion is that it's a coping mechanism, to cope with death and pain from the loss of a loved one, to cope with the stress of misfortune or tragedy, to make sense of things, make sense of and explain the unknown, because we all feel some cognitive dissonance when we just don't know something. People tend to have a need for hope when things are seeming hopeless, for there to be something positive when everything feels negative, and to feel a part of themselves and what they love is in some way infinite, when life is so finite, so they welcome religion into their lives as it offers that. I have all the same needs as everyone else, and I do very much wish parts of religion were real. So my ultimate conclusion as to why I don't believe: my brain just doesn't work that way. Religion to me is: Illogical. Does. Not. Compute. Syntax Error.
Abrahamic religions are to me, probably the most mind-boggling. I was raised Christian, but I could never get my mind to bend in a way necessary to believe, and not for lack of trying. I find it rather fascinating at how other peoples' minds are able to wrap around and accept religion. Almost terrifying, because it's just sooo foreign from how my mind works.

Resident wet blanket.
Instructor
#432 Old 1st Dec 2015 at 9:14 PM
It all comes down to a really simple notion:

How is your life affected by me not believing in something?
Top Secret Researcher
#433 Old 2nd Dec 2015 at 2:15 AM
Quote: Originally posted by GabyBee
It all comes down to a really simple notion:

How is your life affected by me not believing in something?


Certain people would say that their life is affected because it's like watching somebody step in front of a bus that they can't see coming. If you saw someone do that, most people would try to help them. So, according to them, it's their duty to stop people from not believing in order to save them from [insert bad consequences here]. Therefore, anything they do to further that goal is justified.

Sane people, however, would say it doesn't affect them at all, unless they want to talk to you (in a respectful manner) about it, either because they're the same and want to compare notes or because they're different and want to learn about a new point of view (which really isn't your duty to provide, but not much harm in asking once if you don't want to).


Still, that doesn't really affect how much you think about it, since thinking is personal and what other people think is interpersonal. For me, I had to do a lot of thinking to get to where I am now - I got stuck for a few years because I kept trying to get around my conclusion, because I didn't like the possible deeper meaning. Still, once I got to my conclusion, I kind of settled down. Now I just don't think about it unless something comes up that challenges my worldview or I'm dealing with someone who's being annoying about religious stuff.

To me, the thinking about it is just a roadmap. Once you're there and not planning to leave, you don't need it as much unless something new comes up.


But I think your original point was about labels, and how you don't care about them. In that regard, it's pretty much just used for interpersonal stuff. I mean, religion is used for personal connection as much as the spiritual stuff - it's possible to find atheists who join a religion just for the community. Take the religion away, and it makes sense to find another community of people who believe the same thing you do. So the label comes in handy there, as it's easier to find 'atheist group' than 'don't believe in god' group.
Or if you're trying to explain that you don't believe in any gods, it's easier to say 'I'm an atheist' or 'I don't believe' than "I read the bible and really questioned some of the morals in there and so I really got to thinking..."
I'd actually compare atheism more to vegetarianism. Neither of them are the dominant mode of thinking, unlike people who don't play tennis, but the label comes in handy when you want to find other people who are the same, or to give a shorthand explanation, or to find new things to think about.

So basically, the labels are just there for the benefit of other people. Some of us do, but for people who don't want to talk about their lack of belief or tell people not to put meat in the dish, it doesn't matter.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Forum Resident
#434 Old 2nd Dec 2015 at 3:57 AM
Quote: Originally posted by GabyBee
It all comes down to a really simple notion:

How is your life affected by me not believing in something?


It shouldn't be at all affected, but unfortunately it is, sort of, through other people.

Partly, vocal non-believers encourage other non-believers to be public about their lack of belief to help non-believers with religious families etc. to realise that non-belief is acceptable too. It's part of the same general idea as Gay Pride marches - more people to say "we're here, we're normal/nice, don't be afraid to join us/of us". Obviously this isn't a good idea if you'd put yourself in any kind of danger by doing so, but also it's less important in countries, regions and/or social groups with plenty of public non-believers already.

The other part is about various political issues that are often affected by religious belief - issues like religious education in public schools, availability of abortion (and sometimes contraception), LGBTQ rights. Religious leaders can claim that a majority support their view, because a large proportion of the population is nominally in their religious group - so non-believers want more people to be public about their non-belief so their views are not assumed to be identical to the religious leaders' views (though of course they may support/oppose the issue in question anyway). On the same theme, religious people who are prepared to say "although I believe in religion X, I don't agree with the official stance on ....". Because otherwise laws get passed (or not repealed) that we really wish weren't...
dodgy builder
#435 Old 4th Dec 2015 at 10:32 AM Last edited by Volvenom : 4th Dec 2015 at 11:58 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Johnny_Bravo
Does Satanism count as non-religion? Because it's basically about not being a dick and respecting others and yourself.


There is so many things I would like to comment on now, but I'm only on my mobile.

Satanisme is a religion because you believe in a powerful being outside your self. Satan is a god because God is I would say. There wouldn't be a Satan without God.

Apparently Satan came about in Christianity when the community had the hardest time with the Roman authorities. Satan was the Emperor basically.

I'm back on my stationary

Quote: Originally posted by GnatGoSplat
I think I can kind of understand where Volvenom is coming from, as I guess I have pontificated on my lack of belief and could probably list a ton of bullet-point reasons which nobody cares about, so I won't. Perhaps Volvenom is just like me and can't help but sit around, thinking about stuff. I just can't shut it off, and perhaps that's why I worry so much, but I digress. I think it's good to sit around thinking about stuff. The more we think, the more we learn, the more we understand, is the key to solving problems.


I probably think too much yes. I should probably think less, but it's interesting I do agree it sometimes solves problems, and it's important to understand why people do stuff. Like I don't buy lottery tickets and WHY don't I buy lottery tickets. I have to come up with a reason why. I'm not very good at finding the right arguments when i need them, so I think that's what I'm doing, but it can be quite exhausting always having to come up with these reasons. The trouble of course is it's much easier in writing. I get the time I need to collect the arguements something I don't face to face.

Quote: Originally posted by GnatGoSplat
In that same pattern, I don't so much think about why I don't believe, as it's obvious to me, but I've definitely expended a great deal of energy thinking about why other people do believe. My conclusion is that it's a coping mechanism, to cope with death and pain from the loss of a loved one, to cope with the stress of misfortune or tragedy, to make sense of things, make sense of and explain the unknown, because we all feel some cognitive dissonance when we just don't know something. People tend to have a need for hope when things are seeming hopeless, for there to be something positive when everything feels negative, and to feel a part of themselves and what they love is in some way infinite, when life is so finite, so they welcome religion into their lives as it offers that. I have all the same needs as everyone else, and I do very much wish parts of religion were real. So my ultimate conclusion as to why I don't believe: my brain just doesn't work that way. Religion to me is: Illogical. Does. Not. Compute. Syntax Error.
Abrahamic religions are to me, probably the most mind-boggling. I was raised Christian, but I could never get my mind to bend in a way necessary to believe, and not for lack of trying. I find it rather fascinating at how other peoples' minds are able to wrap around and accept religion. Almost terrifying, because it's just sooo foreign from how my mind works.


Being a non-believer is something new. I believe most people just follow a pattern in life. They have different ideas as to what is important. Some want to be a part of those religious people meeting in the church hall, because they are the ones in charge apparently. If you're not a part of that community of religious people, you're an outsider. If it from that follows you have to believe in God then let it be so. They learn a behavior and what to say and do. It's the antropologist education speaking now

It's like that in many small places at least. In the city it's a bit different because the variaty of powerful arenas, and diversities in places to feel at home. That's probably why it's easier to be an athiest in the city. We all want to belong somewhere and the city has more of that, and many places that doesn't believe.

I grew up in a small place with 600 inhabitants where many lived far from each other, and moved towards the city because I didn't feel at home. My family isn't religious and I just moved to taste that word Athiest, beginning at Agnostic. I didn't turn around as you did. I came to the conclution it's just a decition I need to make. Do I believe there really is a God? No, I don't, so I'm an athiest then. It's just a word. In some societies and for some people it may be so it's easier to just not believe than to say you're an athiest. That word is dangerous somehow. I can see it can be a tiresome discussion to take on.

I've seen people on my Facebook from the US yelling at Athiests, like it's any different from being an non-believer. It's not easy being a non-believer in the US either. I stayed there with some far off relatives years ago and they had the prayer at the table. I didn't attend. I don't pray at the table and don't you DEAR telling me to It wasn't made such a point of then, so I just don't. I don't fold my hands and don't say the words. I just wait for the others to finish. I just feel like religious people is a bit silly sometimes really, oh? Do you believe in God Really?

It soon becomes very difficult being religious when you take a degree, because then you have to reason with why you are. So you have to take on that discussion.

Quote: Originally posted by Johnny_Bravo
The Islamic religion was brought into the world by force.


Ha, oh was it? I can assure that was done several times by the Christian as well. Norways long coastline and high secluded mountains? According to the sagas written by Snorre in about 1200 it was a divided country. The inlanders was really pagan some places, while some coastal towns was all Christian around 1000. We had 2 or 3 Kings in Norway trying to change the religion of the Vikings. Olav Tryggvason wikipedia apparently succeeded with weapons in hand. You're being baptist or killed! Around 1200 though we were still building wooden churches with pagan symbolic creatures on them. Giving people that "choice" was the usual way in many European communities. The priests followed the Kings into unknown territories and baptist the new people there weather they wanted to or not.

Quote: Originally posted by maxon
Well, there is this: you might find it interesting to read.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ular-kids-study


Thank you, very interesting reading. As an athiest you probably have to use the time to explain to your kids why, while as a religious parent you just refer to Gods commandments, or what it's called.
Lab Assistant
#436 Old 11th Feb 2016 at 2:11 PM Last edited by wlionrjl : 11th Feb 2016 at 3:05 PM.
When I was younger, I didn't really believe in religious teachings. I went to church just because my friends did. I viewed it as something like an ethics class, using interesting tales to teach us morals. Bible verses had then seemed so illogical & meaningless. I doubted & felt 'fake' for going to church, so I stopped going for 5 years & labelled myself as an atheist. I was also studying & working in Biochemistry so being atheist seemed like a natural fit. But, a little part of me still believed in God, even though I couldn't find a good reason how he could exist.

Then somehow I grew up & experienced events that could only be likened to what I heard others have said previously but could not fully understand - "God works in mysterious ways". I began to slowly understand why God and religion was so important in so many people's lives, to society, to civilization, to history, to even science. Religion/God is everywhere in this world even though most are blind to see it.

Suddenly, things I was blind to make sense, things that were previously meaningless holds immense meaning. I had a paradigm shift. Just like all astronauts experienced the 'Overview effect' when they saw earth from outerspace https://vimeo.com/55073825, something changed & it was so meaningful & beautiful you that just want everyone else to experience it. I don't mean it in a bad way but you understand why some Christians pity those who are still 'blind'. Now the song amazing grace "I was blind and now I see" have so much more meaning. I do believe though that some religions are 'better'/closer to the truth than others.

Science & religion can definitely co-exist and I see the beauty in both. In both, it is a never ending & continuously evolving quest for the truth. And in both, you can use it for evil & for good.
Mad Poster
#437 Old 11th Feb 2016 at 3:11 PM
I've got the opposite view. I grew up in a relatively religious Christian family (more the 'important event happens at church' kind of churchgoers than the 'every sunday, and evening prayer' kind, but still). I went to sunday school for several years in my early childhood (more out of habit and for the social part, really) and as I grew I saw less and less point in the stories. I thought I could see the moral values and all that, but that's long before I actually opened a bible. Plus, sunday school only picked and choosed between stories, so we got Noah and the Ark, Jesus times way too many, and skimming the surface of most of the stories you'd pick for kids age 4-12, all told like happy children's story on felt boards (even the Easter story, which is in fact kinda creepy in its original format). We also got all the somewhat kid-friendly songs written to make religion seem like the most awesome thing in the world.

I think I was around 8-10 years old when I first felt something was off with it all. Still hadn't opened a bible, but for some reason I had this sinking feeling in my stomach every time those songs were on the agenda. In the end I just mimed singing them, because they just didn't feel right to say out loud. Maybe it's because I've never really believed in other things, like Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy (I caught on that it was mum quite early on), or any of the other magical creatures, and except for the occasional comment from mom or dad's more religious part of the family (living far enough away to not have much influence on me), religion was rarely a theme in my family. We went to the church or the Salvation Army meetings, and that was it, really.

Over the years I've had my 'clashes' with religion. Nothing big, but it's just one little thing after the other. On so many levels it didn't feel right. I've always been a 'hands on' kind of person - I like to be able to experience things before I fully grasp them as a concept. I'm closing in on 30, and except for some people in my family telling about "visions" and "dreams" (most likely just dreams, related to dead family members), I've never experienced such things. I've never felt the need to have something bigger and untouchable somewhere out there. It simply does not fit my world view.

Recently, I did get curious, and explored the bible and its stories some more. What I found scared me more than I thought was possible. I could dream up a better moral system as a four-year-old, and the bible has more violence and questionable reasoning than a whole decade's worth of TV and movie even could - and I didn't even make it to the middle of the old testament. I think that was what finally decided it for me, just one more drop that made the glass run over. If a belief system can be based on that book, I'm never going to be a follower of it again (and I'm not sure I ever was). And Christianity isn't the only insane religion out there - it's just the one I have the most experience with. Sure, some religions are more peaceful and have better values - but they're still equally nuts.

Anyway, as creation stories go, I'm a sciency person. I like logical explanations that can be tried and tested. I like when things make sense. And I like when people do try to find probable solutions to seemingly impossible questions. I also like that there does not always need to be one true answer, but that the answers move from fluid at first to rigid when the evidence is strong enough, and yet can be challenged. Religion does not offer this to me, and I've let it go. However, it's not always that easy to let religion go. it's like the over-eager door-to-door seller with a foot in the doorway, never quite accepting that you don't want to buy his crap.

I think the biggest problem with belief is that we're so scared of hurting people's feelings by attacking their life views. But it's not any different from challenging their thoughts and beliefs of any other theme. Why should religion be such a protected theme? You can discuss what's best out of pizza and tacos, and because everyone has a different taste, you'll never come to a conclusion. You can discuss which religion is more right out of Islam and Christianity, but you'll usually end up with a similar answer - it's based on opinion, not facts. You can discuss why the sky is blue - but that discussion is shorter, because there's an actual answer to it. Christianity has been around for 1500-2000 years, and so far nothing much has happened on that front. Nobody has found Heaven, nobody has found a God, and we've not even found sound traces of a Jesus. And believe me - we've tried. But as long as people have their religion with them "in their heart" (which isn't a proper place to keep anything, but that's a discussion for another day), it doesn't matter if something is true or not, as long as they feel happy and satisfied. And don't you dare challenge that happy feeling! *sigh*

Maybe religious belief systems are too rigid, and perhaps that's why there are as many religious views as there are people who follow them. You won't find two people with the exact same views (unless they're in a strict cult, and maybe not even then).

(I'm tired and rambling, and half of this probably doesn't even make sense, so it's probably best if I stop now).
Lab Assistant
#438 Old 11th Feb 2016 at 3:59 PM Last edited by wlionrjl : 11th Feb 2016 at 5:32 PM.
Attaining spiritual enlightenment is said to be the pinnacle of a human's personal achievement. This is prevalent in all religions, across borders & throughout the ages. Heck, even Sims can glow, teleport and levitate one they reached the highest skill in Meditation There is a deeper meaning to that, having spiritual wisdom really does give you the powers to transcend earthly limitations like space and time (I probably sound like a kook here, but it's true (not literal)). Even there is more to a Sim then their basic physiological needs (reptilian brain level), wants, fears, memories, hobbies & aspirations. Having spiritual wisdom can only be a good thing - it complements knowledge borne by science, not takes away from it. Why do Sims need to achieve a sufficient level of logic before they can even learn meditation if religion is illogical?

There is a reason why there are people are willing to suffer (fasting, flagellation, walking on burning coals, living in a cave alone) just to taste enlightenment. There are many, many cases where people just suddenly believed in God after a near death experience, illness or a loss of loved one.. they experienced a shift in thinking after suffering.

But real spiritual wisdom can really only be self-discovered & self-attained. No person, no church can convince anyone to believe unless the person himself desires it from their own heart. The bible only guides like a light that helps you to 'see', it is not an instruction manual you read to achieve X, Y & Z though many zealous Christians think so. “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8. No one, no matter how good the teacher, can teach a student if the student themselves do not want to learn.
Top Secret Researcher
#439 Old 11th Feb 2016 at 6:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
Attaining spiritual enlightenment is said to be the pinnacle of a human's personal achievement. This is prevalent in all religions, across borders & throughout the ages.


False. Enlightenment is specific to the major Indian religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism), some branches of Christianity, and New Age. Even then, the meanings are different. In the Christianity branches, enlightenment means getting closer to the deity. In Buddhism, the goal is Anatta, or losing all sense of self and viewing your existence as a bundle of fleeting experiences that happened to the same body. In Jainism, you are an indestructible being forged from your experiences. In Hinduism, nobody can agree on it. New Age means getting closer to nature.

As for other religions? They often didn't have that. Quite a few pagan religions were more about appeasing the gods and earning glory through earthly deeds (or not screwing up). Greek religion? You either became a legendary hero and got sent to the Elysian Fields, screwed with the gods in a major way and went to Tartarus, or went to the same afterlife as 99% of the population. Norse? You died in battle or in childbirth, and you were sent to an afterlife of eternal fighting until the end of the world. Everyone else went to the cold, chilly afterlife. Mayan was much the same, except you could also get to the good afterlife through suicide.

Very, very few of these religions had any concept of enlightenment. Funny thing is, enlightenment didn't become a part of Christianity until after it was exposed to the SE Asian religions. The first mention of it - 'illuminism' - was used by one of the founders of dispensationalism, which developed around the beginning of the 20th century. Most other versions of enlightenment in Christianity were brought over by Buddhist teachers who were also Christians.
Then there are the New Age religions, which are fairly recent, as the name suggests. Again, they were heavily influenced by the Indian religions.

For that matter, the concept of enlightenment is recent even in the Indian religions. It came up when the concept of samsara - the birth-death cycle - did, and that was in the first century BCE, which is also when the three religions formed.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
Why do Sims need to achieve a sufficient level of logic before they can even learn meditation if religion is illogical?


Because it's a game? And that's only specific to TS2. In TS3, you need to learn Sim-Fu in order to meditate. For that matter, in TS2, any sim with too high a playful score cannot meditate. Does that mean childish people are permanently cut off from enlightenment? No, because it's a game.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
There is a reason why there are people are willing to suffer (fasting, flagellation, walking on burning coals, living in a cave alone) just to taste enlightenment.


Yeah, and there's a reason why people do all those things and post it on the internet, as well as other things that prove fatal. They want fame and will do anything just for a taste of it. Does that make fame the pinnacle of human achievement?

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
There are many, many cases where people just suddenly believed in God after a near death experience, illness or a loss of loved one.. they experienced a shift in thinking after suffering.


"Just suddenly"? No. After suffering, they were desperate to find some meaning in their suffering, so they latched on to the only thing they could think of, which is usually the predominant religion in their home country. When those things happen in China, where all religions are suppressed, people don't convert to any religion. If Islam were the dominant religion, they would go to it. People would probably go to Hinduism if that were the dominant religion where they live.

And there are plenty of people who go through those things and don't convert, even when there is a clear religious preference in the area.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
The bible only guides like a light, it is not an instruction manual you read to achieve X, Y & Z though many zealous Christians think so.


Okay. Let's see what this guiding light has to show me. Let me just open this up...

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...

1 Corinthians chapter 14:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Jeremiah 48:10:

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

1 Timothy chapter 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

1 Samuel 15:3:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

2 Chronicles 15:12-13:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

...Why do I want to use this book as a spiritual guide? It condones and encourages murder, legalized rape, incest, slavery, sexism, homophobia, racism, and killing babies! That's horrible! I might as well use A Song of Ice and Fire as my guiding light, because at least it acknowledges that most of those things are wrong! This one just states "Hey, that guy doesn't belong to your religion! BURN HIS CITY TO THE GROUND."

What exactly is that supposed to inspire in me besides revulsion?

Oh, but let me guess. I'll be told that I'm not reading it the right way and I'm not open-minded enough to look at it in the Christian way. I guess I wasn't reading it the right way back when I was a Christian, then, because that's pretty much what led me away from the religion. This is supposed to be the word of the almighty universal creator? Either he would be a total psychopath or something had gone horribly wrong in translation. And why would that happen? Why would an almighty creator who's going to throw you in the fiery pit allow the word that saves you from the pit to get corrupted in that way?

For that matter, why make it something so corrupted that the only way you can get any wisdom from it is by ignoring most of it and using the rest as something that vaguely leads you in the right direction?
I would agree that religion and science could play nicely with each other, except that science is based on logic, and that doesn't seem to work well with certain religions.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Lab Assistant
#440 Old 12th Feb 2016 at 2:35 AM
The concept of enlightenment is persistent.. not by measuring, not by data but from human experience. From the song Amazing Grace, to words of CS Lewis “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Many have likened enlightenment to the following quote but it is hard to truly understand unless you had experienced it yourself: "This experience is not something that you acquire, as if you were missing it before, but more like a realization that it was present all along. Much like realizing that the sun was always shining behind the clouds. Life's illusion is lifted, and clarity and understanding replaces it. Remove the obstructions, and all is revealed."

This is a very interesting article http://www.desiringgod.org/articles...ble-about-faith that attempts to explain enlightenment. "Frequently, what we think we see is an inverse or distorted form of the way things actually are. Wisdom is recognizing the truth of this phenomenon and faith is putting our trust in revelation beyond our perceptions in order to make the necessary adjustments and see things right-side up. Faith is a way of seeing accurately." "We cannot believe merely what we see. Our perceptions are not our primary source of truth; they were never designed to be. They require the help of another source in order for us to accurately understand what’s truly real."

The Bible understood that for many people, people need proof and people need to see with their eyes in order to believe. John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I was also like this in my atheist days - sceptical & disdainful of how "You can believe without evidence" is a major theme in Christianity, but now I am thankful I had been given the opportunity to open my mind & 'see'.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Because it's a game? And that's only specific to TS2. In TS3, you need to learn Sim-Fu in order to meditate. For that matter, in TS2, any sim with too high a playful score cannot meditate. Does that mean childish people are permanently cut off from enlightenment? No, because it's a game.


Even the developers understood that a person needs a certain level of maturity to achieve spiritual enlightenment. Many works (much more than unenlightened people could imagine) are inspired by reality, especially so for a life-simulation game. Meditation inspired by Sim-Fu is also inspired by real life (Meditation is used in Shaolin KungFu to 'unlock powers'); it does not take away from the reality mimicked in TS2, that one requires thinking skills & maturity to be enlightened. If religion are all lies, the developers would have put Meditation in 'Creativity' instead.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Yeah, and there's a reason why people do all those things and post it on the internet, as well as other things that prove fatal. They want fame and will do anything just for a taste of it. Does that make fame the pinnacle of human achievement?


By suffering, the person experiences, saw proof and therefore only then believes because as above, many people need to see to believe. There is a reason why in Calvin & Hobbes, Calvin's dad frequently made Calvin to do things hates like to 'build character'. Calvin does not understand why, so he is recalcitrant. I would think that 'building character' is a achievement of extreme importance for humanity, much more so than fame or riches.. just like what the Bible says.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
What exactly is that supposed to inspire in me besides revulsion?


See the parable of the eyes and how sometimes perception is far away from the truth. Like I said in my earlier post, real spiritual wisdom can really only be self-discovered & self-attained but first an open heart must precede. Proverbs 14:29 Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly.
Mad Poster
#441 Old 12th Feb 2016 at 4:20 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 12th Feb 2016 at 5:33 AM.
If a modern version of Calvin & Hobbes can do the job of showing someone how to build character, why would you need a 1500-2000 year old book to do it? I can think of a lot of books that has made me see things clearer, and none of them has been more than 40 years old. Most were also better written, have better plots, and have authors still alive today.

Enlightment is just a word. It means to see things clearer, and it can go both ways. Even the "Age of Enlightenment" was about going more away from the rigorous teachings of the church.

Quote:
The Enlightenment, known in French as the Siècle des Lumières (Century of Enlightenment) and in German as the Aufklârung, was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The principal goals of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, fraternity, and ending the abuses of the church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

(Would find something better than a wiki quite, but it's the middle of the night)

And as you can see here, the word enlightenment has more meanings than just the religious one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enlightenment, and if you're after synonyms, not many has a strictly religious meaning: http://www.freethesaurus.com/enlightenment

It's really just yet another word religion has taken to mean something strictly religious. Like the word "believe". If you just say the words "I believe", people often assume the intended next words will be "in (a) god".

The bible doesn't teach us anything that can't be learned through steady contact with other people. Most of what we need is already in our instincts. We've even evolved in such a way that if we stopped taking care of each other, we would die out. Out in the wild, some animals are on their own from the start, while most others get a few weeks to a few years to learn how to survive before they're thrown out. Humans aren't even close to ready until we're somewhere between 13 and 20 years. And this has been true ever since we climbed down from the trees. We've evolved to take care of our families longer than most animals do. We learn our morals from our parents, and we start learning how to interact with people from the moment we're born, long before we can even talk, and many years before we start understanding what religion is. We learn that smiling makes other people happy. We learn not to hit someone to get what we want. We learn to share toys and food. We learn to be nice to people. We learn how to share experiences. We learn tolerance. If you don't tell a kid that differences are a VBT, a kid will play with anyone as long as they're nice, with no regards to skin color, beliefs, or any other thing. This go across all religions and non-religions. Kids having gone through abuse from early years often learn twisted morals and twisted ways of reacting to other people.

In fact, most of the bible teaches intolerance, that it' okay to kill people because they're different, that rape is perfectly okay, that stories with questionable 'facts' are meant to be a moral guidance, that it's fine to have an abusive father if you just believe he's always right, and the list goes on and on. There are even passages describing that Jesus looked down on family values. Even if there are some quotes here and there that actually have something halfway decent to say, they're usually taken out of their context. So while the quote may be good, the rest of the story it belongs to is nearly always questionable. I guess these quotes are the straws religious people tend to grasp after when they can't think up something better with their own imagination.

I do understand how people can think there's something bigger than ourselves. Even I had those thoughts when I was younger. But what I can't understand is why religious people who claim to be tolerant and 'good' will wave about their books with 2000+ year old (and long since outdated) content as if it's the high grounds of morals, when it's the complete opposite. Even the Jesus story is seriously questionable - In its essence, god "sacrifices" (but not really, since this was the plan all along, and woo, paradise forever!) his only son to give humans a spiritual "get out of jail free" card. What this essentially means is that even if you're a child rapist, or murder thousands of people, but welcome god in your heart, you'll be forgiven when you die. But if you are a good and righteous non-believer in Christianity, and even if you do good things all throughout your life, you won't be welcome in said paradise, and may burn forever in a pit. If that ain't completely screwed up logic, I don't know what is.
Lab Assistant
#442 Old 12th Feb 2016 at 9:18 PM
There is a difference between sacred literature, and ordinary literature. In the first, there is power & truth in their words, layered in many dimensions, that evokes a kind of spiritual power in those who are able to internalize it.

About understanding texts that seem cruel or illogical:
At the lowest level, there is the literal of understanding the Bible. Literal interpretation is basically the lowest form of thinking, evidenced by how young children & autistic people tend to only be able to understand words very literally.

Then at a slightly higher level of understanding, there is the moral understanding of the Bible. Children below 4 do not quite understand the meaning good or bad. At age 4, they can follow the rules - but only because they are told to do so. By age 7, children follow the rules because they fear punishment but do not yet quite understand abstract concepts like moral values. By age 9, they will start to develop a true understanding of moral values such as 'Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

When reading from the Bible, it is very easy to follow rules literally because the Bible tells you to do it or because you fear punishment from God, or even to understand basic moral values. Easy because it does not require a great level of understanding. This is where the stereotype of the mindless illogical Christians or Islamist, etc comes in. There are undoubtedly many mindless religious folks out there. Many are exploited for ungodly purposes because they have a low level of true spiritual understanding. But mostly you see many mindless ones because of a statistical reason that having a greater level of understanding requires harder thinking and not many people are willing to do harder thinking. For example: Logically & statistically, more people would have graduated high school than people graduating in a PhD. A rationalist sceptic would have understood "do this, don't do that, god will punish" but the Bible feels contradictory to their own moral interpretation because a higher level of understanding is not there yet.

When level 1 & level 2 of the above are skilled up (in each level, there are many sub-levels as shown in the child parable), there is an even higher level of understanding - via allegorical interpretation. Complex ideas can be conveyed in hidden meanings and in figurative language, which can be peeled layer after layers. Higher level thinking & powers would not be accessible to those who have not 'graduated' from the lower levels - somewhat like the Sims skilling bars.

I believe that for a rational sceptic, only when there is a breakthrough at this allegorical stage, coupled with experiences that one can see the immense truth and beauty in the Bible. It is more incredible that a text that is thousands of years old could be so wise beyond words even in the modern age. There are people have studied the bible for years, pored over every word for a meaning because they just know that something is there but the Bible holds its secrets well. When knowledge is power, especially the esoteric type, only the most deserving shall receive it.

At last, there is the anagogical/mystical interpretation of the Bible that only the wisest are able to achieve. This is where a person is finally able to transcend earthly limitations. Superheroes who acquire unearthly powers after a certain transformative event in their lives did not come into popular Western culture for nothing.

However, the Bible has made it clear that everyone in the world are sinners & therefore imperfect, so we realize that no human can interpret the word of God with 100% accuracy. There are so many interpretations, with each claiming their interpretations are correct, but this does not mean that the Bible is confusing or false. If this sounds too 'Christian-y', try applying it in a science perspective. No scientist can ever claim that they know everything with 100% accuracy even if it is within their field of study, even if they spent their entire life researching it, even if it is the culturally accepted theory of their time. You can say that unless they are God, no human - no matter how learned - can or will possibly know everything. There is a certain humility in not knowing everything and the Bible is big on humility when trying to understand God's words.

There is the argument that at least science attempts to correct itself by experiments and peer reviews so that all distractions (debunked theories) are lifted and the truth remains. But the most interesting thing is that a journey to spiritual truth is remarkably similar to the 'science way'. It is a lifting of distractions from one's eyes to see the truth. It is a process of continuous improvements, with each iteration you level up and get closer to the truth. I do not claim to be spiritually learned but I do know that I am closer to the truth than what I was before. Just like how scientists still have so much more to invent & discover, but they definitely do know more than scientists from 10 years ago. Science aims to unlock the secrets of nature. Religion aims to unlock the secrets in the human spirit. Both are extremely satisfying & joyful once you have achieved a breakthrough - it changes your life & the lives around you & is 'eternal'.

"I've studied Economics & Sociology, but studying History makes me dumber" Said no one ever, but this is the type of reasoning Atheists like to make. In reality, studying History in addition to Economics & Sociology will not only make you much richer in knowledge, but when you are able to assimilate the many branches of knowledge, then you will gain real wisdom. Age of enlightenment I'm sure has its roots in the teachings of the Bible (as do many events in Western Christian-influenced civilizations even to this very day), even though it may seem like a direct contradictory force at the surface level.
Top Secret Researcher
#443 Old 12th Feb 2016 at 9:33 PM Last edited by hugbug993 : 12th Feb 2016 at 9:44 PM.
Oh. Well, I'm autistic, so I guess I'm going to hell because I can never understand the bible.

Do you think you might be able to explain the anagogical meaning of this passage for me? "Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
Also, please explain it in simple terms so my poor, simple autistic brain can understand it.

And I guess my job as an editor is really screwed, because my entire job is interpreting text on a metaphorical and allegorical level, and in all possible ways it can be taken, and I apparently can't do that because I'm such a low-level thinker and can't understand any sort of context for the bible, despite researching it for years.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Lab Assistant
#444 Old 12th Feb 2016 at 9:49 PM
When I see language like, 'We can't know everything because we're fallible humans and only God knows everything;' or 'We're not meant to know;' 'We can't know because it teaches humility;' that sounds like rationalizing the irrational. Why is this text confusing, why aren't we given more answers, why doesn't it make sense? Oh, we're not supposed to know. Of course that would explain everything -- it would also explain away anything that didn't make sense.
Mad Poster
#445 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 1:02 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 13th Feb 2016 at 1:16 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
There is a difference between sacred literature, and ordinary literature. In the first, there is power & truth in their words, layered in many dimensions, that evokes a kind of spiritual power in those who are able to internalize it.


Uhm... not really. It's written by humans, rewritten several times by humans, translated by humans, and read by humans. There's not even much truth in it. It says one thing on one page, then turns 180 and says the complete opposite on the next page, or in the next chapter - even occasionally on the same page. There's more truth in promises made by the government in the time before an election...

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
About understanding texts that seem cruel or illogical:
At the lowest level, there is the literal of understanding the Bible. Literal interpretation is basically the lowest form of thinking, evidenced by how young children & autistic people tend to only be able to understand words very literally..


So how do you propose we understand the texts? By reimagening what the meaning between the lines just might be? If you can't read a "true" text straightforward, then where's the truth in it? A novelist can hide secret meanings behind their words, but I'd assume that some godly being would at least be able to put things in clearer text. Or edit their own work when they see something isn't right. Most of the events the bible speaks of has been more or less proven to never have happened. So is the bible meant to be strictly metaphorical? And where's the truth in that?

As for "'Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." - it's not a biblical saying. Sorry, but that's been around since before the bible was even thought up. Even animals of the same species understand it on a basic level. Kids learn to behave by observing their parents' behavior, and by trial and failure. The learning start at birth, and develops as their brains do. You can see similar learning (if a bit faster) in other mammals.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
When reading from the Bible, it is very easy to follow rules literally because the Bible tells you to do it or because you fear punishment from God, or even to understand basic moral values. Easy because it does not require a great level of understanding.


Exactly where are these morals found? All I've ever seen are in the scrapped version of the ten commandments (there were two sets, and the second set is not the same as the one everyone thinks), and even those are questionable. I actually prefer the revised "two commandments" version - and you don't have to read the bible to understand those, because they're both reasonable and possible to come up with on your own.

Also, I've never much believed in punishment in the sense bible talks of it. A few people do some bad things, and god decides to rain his wrath over every single human, plant and animal (except his "chosen ones" and a few lucky animals). That's not punishment, that's straight out genocide on a very high level. And it's not even the first time. I lost count of how many towns and cities were levelled to the ground by god's wrath in the first part of the bible, and like I said, I hadn't even come close to halfway.

I don't see beauty in the bible. I see a merciless and unthinking deity playing a dangerous game with the lives of the creatures he thought up.
(I find this cartoon series quite... I guess the word is 'enlightening').

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
It is more incredible that a text that is thousands of years old could be so wise beyond words even in the modern age.


I can pull wiser words out from between my buttocks without even trying, but oh, well. I guess it's a matter of opinion. Considering just how much is outdated in the book, there's not much left for modern age. I can fully understand that people might have believed every sinle word some 1000-500 years ago, but then science took an upswing, and all of a sudden, half the things the bible says just wasn't relevant any longer. Maybe you can find some metaphorical meaning if you look close enough, and do some twists on words here and there.

As a bonus, our brains come with the want to understand things. Ever since we climbed down from the trees and learned to speak, and came aware of ourselves in a way most other animals most likely don't do, we've wanted to understand why we are here. Before science came along, there was spirits and gods. Many gods (one for the sky, one for the weather, one for the sea, and so on) were slowly reduced, until it landed on the one god most religions swear to today. Instead of being everywhere in the nature, this god was banished to an invisible place in the sky, because we've been unable to find it anywhere. Now, the god is outside the universe, because we keep pushing it to a place we have yet to search properly.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
However, the Bible has made it clear that everyone in the world are sinners & therefore imperfect, so we realize that no human can interpret the word of God with 100% accuracy.


I don't consider a newborn baby a sinner. I consider a newborn baby a clean slate filled with endles possibilities. Where's the sin? What has the baby ever done? Alright, maybe it tore something on the way out, and quite possibly also caused a lot of other problems for the parents, long sleepless nights and the like - but it's not the baby's fault. A two-year old kid has probably done a lot of mischief in his life, but I still don't consider him a sinner. He just does not know better. Same with a 10 year old child, or a 20 year old young adult, who has perhaps done some slightly bad things in his life - but not more than any other person. They're just young people trying to find a correct path in their life.

You know who I consider sinners? People who willingly and/or with any kind of intent do bad things to other people, or animals, for that matter.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
No scientist can ever claim that they know everything with 100% accuracy even if it is within their field of study, even if they spent their entire life researching it, even if it is the culturally accepted theory of their time.


Well, that's science. It's never true until it's been tried and tested to the point where you can no longer say it's not true, and even then you can find flaws in the theories - but here'st he thing: The oint of science is to strive to do better. To boldly go where people have been before, and see new things in their work. Old theories are scrapped if they're not good enough. That's more than you can say of the bible (the slavery bits are still in, for one...)

You can say that unless they are God, no human - no matter how learned - can or will possibly know everything.

Like god knew how the universe was created? Or humans? Or even in which order? Or simple mathematics and geography (bigger boat, Noah...)? Or how slavery and rape one day would be frowned upon? Yeah, god knows everything, sure... Keep believing that, if that's what you want, but tunnel vision does not let you see the whole picture.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
There is the argument that at least science attempts to correct itself by experiments and peer reviews so that all distractions (debunked theories) are lifted and the truth remains. But the most interesting thing is that a journey to spiritual truth is remarkably similar to the 'science way'.


Uhm, no. Just no. The journey to "spiritual truth" is nothing like science. It's more like the complete opposite.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
"I've studied Economics & Sociology, but studying History makes me dumber" Said no one ever, but this is the type of reasoning Atheists like to make.


Studying history is one of the things that will make you see things clearer. The bible itself has nothing to do with history (because there's barely a shred of real history in it). Religion, however, has all fingers and toes buried deep into history. Judging by how much bad has come out of religion coursing through history (you know - wars, local clashes, wars, wars, maybe some burning of "witches" here and there, holding back important scientific discoveries, some more wars, WWII, terrorist groups, suicide bombings, and educational 'wars' over established scientific facts like evolution, etc.) I'd say not much good come out of any religion. Even the more peaceful ones have their faults.

And atheists don't say history makes you dumber - at least not the ones I've stumbled upon. Repeating previous mistakes made throughout history, now that's what makes you dumber.

Religion can in many ways be compared to mass psychosis. If you put on a stupid hat or silly clothes and declare yourself president of your people, because the voices inside your head told you to - then you earn a first-class ticket to a mental hospital. But if you happen to be the pope, or an "enlightened" priest, people will believe every word and follow you without question, embracing a common invisible friend. Nobody else sees the crazy here?

In any case, I'm all for personal choice when it comes to which imaginary friend(s) you want to adopt or ignore - as long as the same people don't expect me to follow their imaginary friend simply by someone's say-so, or for the fear of eternal punishment. Until I see some kind of proof that can't be denied, I'm going to assume an invisible deity does not exist. And that's my choice. I changed the lightbulb in my lamp of enlightenment, because the one that used to be there didn't shine brightly enough for me to see clearly. I'm all for good reading light, you see, and the tunnel vision the other lightbulb offered simply wasn't good enough for me.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
"This experience is not something that you acquire, as if you were missing it before, but more like a realization that it was present all along. Much like realizing that the sun was always shining behind the clouds. Life's illusion is lifted, and clarity and understanding replaces it. Remove the obstructions, and all is revealed."


Actually, this is almost the exact feeling I had when I started letting go of religion. I felt that the part of my brain that had been clouded by all those conflicting beliefs finally revealed a sunny day, and I was able to see things in new ways, thoughts I'd almost been afraid of exploring simply because the religious teachings said something different. For one, I struggled with the thought of "where do people go when they die?" - which was probably the thought that held me back so long. But when I finally managed to let go of the whole idea of heaven and hell and all that, letting go of the rest kind of just blew away on its own. To me, religion was the obstruction.

(Just so it's said, the "you" I've used is the general "you", not a personal "you").
Lab Assistant
#446 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 4:30 AM
Quote:
Do you think you might be able to explain the anagogical meaning of this passage for me? "Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

Ok. A literal meaning is that a woman's worth is not by her outwards appearance (Because the Bible knows that the real world does judge women by how they look. Why else would the Bible verse say this specifically to women only?) but by actions & strength of character. On the surface, the later sentences appear to be degratory. Submissiveness in a woman is not to be constructed in a negative way aka being a doormat. The bible teaches all Christians to be submissive to God, neither is that considered negative. Submission is humbleness. Being silent does not equate un-thinking (the verse says let a woman learn). To enter a deeper meaning, one has to really observe the world (open eyes) around them and consolidate experiences. As much as it is politically correct to say that men & women are 100% equal, men & women were built to be different creatures. Every human being are worth equal in the eyes of God, but yet men & women are not equal - I hope you can distinguish the difference between the two statements. What makes a man happy is very different from what makes a woman happy. What is good for a woman is different from what is good for a man. A woman does not need to open her mouth so much to be loved & respected - the Bible in its wisdom tells us that for a woman, actions get the job done much better - especially when dealing with a man. This is from experience - it is not something you can read from a book & immediately understand. The verse then goes on to say that Eve was formed from Adam. Again, from experience, men tend to have more dominant characters where women are naturally more gentle (humble). You can see behavioural differences in young children of different sexes, before they are corrupted by environment lest it is argued that the differences in the hard wiring of the brain is purely environmental and not biological. A woman is also part of a man (the allegory of being built from men's ribs) - as I know - again from observations, that men feel incomplete without women (like a part of their self is missing), much more so than women would feel incomplete without men. I could go on to a deeper level, but that should not be unlocked unless more understanding is there so that it would not be constructed as 'offensive' especially when cultural acceptance of an idea changes like the moon & the tide - but the truth is still always shining everyday like the sun in the sky.

There is a quote that says "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Even after that, I'm sure that there are many more levels of understanding that I myself have not unlocked because I still very much lack the experiences or the relevations.

Quote:
When I see language like, 'We can't know everything because we're fallible humans and only God knows everything;' or 'We're not meant to know;' 'We can't know because it teaches humility;' that sounds like rationalizing the irrational. Why is this text confusing, why aren't we given more answers, why doesn't it make sense? Oh, we're not supposed to know. Of course that would explain everything -- it would also explain away anything that didn't make sense.

I never said that we are not supposed to know because it teaches humility. Rather, it's the other way round - having humility is that important step that makes us realize that we do not know everything, so in knowing that, we strive to improve & know more. This is the basis for all progress in human civilization. Animals, as much as we like to think they are similar to humans, do not have 'civilizations' & 'progress' because they cannot comprehend that they do not know everything. And nobody ever said that God does not want us to know, he invites people to knock on his door. But answers when you have to work hard for it is much more meaningful than when it is given directly to you. Think homework. You can never get a perfect score of 100% on a subjective exam but you can get close.

Quote:
Studying history is one of the things that will make you see things clearer. The bible itself has nothing to do with history (because there's barely a shred of real history in it). Religion, however, has all fingers and toes buried deep into history.

This is an example of very literal thinking. Just because I have a metaphor that studying history enriches a person more than if the person only studies Economics & Sociology, it does not mean that I equate the Bible with the history subject. Even the assertion that Bible does not contain history is false. The thought that the Bible is purely borne from the imagination of some authors & contains no such real events is quite unbelievable - even in folklore (what more to say sacred texts), there is a glimmer of truth & wisdom handed to us like a gift from our ancestors - but are not fully understood or appreciated by many as many interpretations dilute its real purpose. Just as science today stands on the shoulders of giants like Einstein, Newton, etc., personal wisdom is built upon on the spiritual wisdom of past giants & prophets.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#447 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 10:39 AM
Oh dear - I better hand my doctorate back. I clearly lack the intelligence to understand anything.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
#448 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 12:09 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 13th Feb 2016 at 12:45 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
This is an example of very literal thinking. Just because I have a metaphor that studying history enriches a person more than if the person only studies Economics & Sociology, it does not mean that I equate the Bible with the history subject. Even the assertion that Bible does not contain history is false. The thought that the Bible is purely borne from the imagination of some authors & contains no such real events is quite unbelievable - even in folklore (what more to say sacred texts), there is a glimmer of truth & wisdom handed to us like a gift from our ancestors - but are not fully understood or appreciated by many as many interpretations dilute its real purpose. Just as science today stands on the shoulders of giants like Einstein, Newton, etc., personal wisdom is built upon on the spiritual wisdom of past giants & prophets.


People who have extensively studied the bible from a historical viewpoint rather than a religious one have come to the conclusion that most of the events in the bible are compound events smashed together from earlier events, and most of the biblical figures are either directly taken from other legends or compound characters from multiple legends and beliefs. If you look at the video I posted above (the AmunRa video), at the end you get a possible explanation on how the Moses story came to be, and the original (non-biblical, but probably a bit religious still) event actually has hard evidence in the form of stone tablets you can visit in a museum. Where are the original stone tablets from the Moses story, or the stones from the smashed set? No one has found a shred of hard evidence of any of them. A lot of the biblical stories have their origin in other religions and beliefs. Even the Jesus origin story.

The main difference between biblical figures and long dead prophets, and people like Einstein and Newton, is that Einstein and Newton actually existed, and left behind notes of their work we're sure they actually wrote.

Many people will swear to the literal truth of the bible. But faced with horrific events from it, they'll say "oh, but that's metaphorical, and means so-and-so, and take the event out of context so it will fit their narrow thinking. Even god says multiple times in the bible that his words are meant to be taken literally. So where does that leave us? With a book that is meant to be taken metaphorically in a literal sense, or taken literally in a metaphorical sense? Either way, something contradicts itself.

The only commandment out of the 20 (the original but smashed ten first commandments out of some 600-ish commandments, and the new set of ten), and the that can be found in its literal sense in laws over the world is the "not kill" one, and that one was actually only found in the first, smashed set of commandments. The second set (the actual ten commandments from the not smashed set) doesn't have a word about killing. Probably because killing is done in the name of god throughout the entire bible, and someebody was covering their behind by not including it in the "new and better" rewriting.

As for wisdom, there's not much of a shred of wisdom in the bible. Quite the contrary. I have yet to see any wisdom in that book that isn't either taken out of original context in the form of a chopped-down quote, or just bare minimum of what everyone who has half a brain could think up on their own with a little bit of life experience in today's society.

I do think that religion could have had some value in earlier days, when people weren't educated and quite possibly needed some guidance, and when the wrath of a spiritual guide was one of the reasons they didn't do bad things. However, I'm not convinced that quoting from the bible would've been the best way to do it, and I certainly do not believe that the some thousand year old so-called "wisdom" of a book written by people who thought that sacrificing your firstborn son (in a time where you were lucky if more than one out of ten of your children saw the end of their teens) was a nice way of pleasing the god(s), or thought a draught in the desert (!) was god's way of saying "I'm pissed off at you for some reason" can possibly be a good moral guide for today's society. Religion has its place in history, obviously, but that isn't to say it's a good part of said history. Most of it is rather grim.
Top Secret Researcher
#449 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 3:57 PM Last edited by hugbug993 : 13th Feb 2016 at 4:11 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
Ok. A literal meaning is that a woman's worth is not by her outwards appearance (Because the Bible knows that the real world does judge women by how they look. Why else would the Bible verse say this specifically to women only?) but by actions & strength of character.


That is not a literal meaning. The literal meaning would be, "women, you look like sluts when you dress up like that. Also, shut up and don't boss the men around."

As for why the bible would say it to women only? At the time, women were extremely covered up, to the point where it was practically a Greek version of a burka - which is what Paul's mother wore. Extreme modesty was the style for women, to the point where the only people who wore less were slaves and prostitutes.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
What makes a man happy is very different from what makes a woman happy. What is good for a woman is different from what is good for a man.


That is crap. You know what makes me happy? Fighting. Orgasms. Telling people when they're idiots. That seems to be the mode of operation for men. Also, I like cooking and cross-stitch. I don't like cooking for other people; mostly just myself. I hate children. And there are plenty of women out there who are pretty similar.

And then there are the men. I have a friend who loves frilly outfits and talking about his emotions. He and another male friend of mine love romance novels. I can't stand those books.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
A woman does not need to open her mouth so much to be loved & respected - the Bible in its wisdom tells us that for a woman, actions get the job done much better - especially when dealing with a man. This is from experience - it is not something you can read from a book & immediately understand. The verse then goes on to say that Eve was formed from Adam.


No, actions don't work better. In my experience, women have to work twice as hard to get half as much respect from a man. In my line of work, I've had writers outright turn me down because they wanted a man to do my job. One of them actually admitted that I was better than the guy who got the job, but felt that he made the right choice anyway, because he didn't think I'd be demanding enough to get the job done right. This was after I told him that the first part of his novel needed major reworking because the main character sounded like a psychopath. (Also, he agreed with me on that, so that's not the reason he turned me down.) Meanwhile, I also had a person disappointed with how brash I was, because he chose a woman specifically because he thought I'd be nice. This was after he saw a sample of my work, which demonstrated how aggressive I can be.

So no, that does not fit my experience at all.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
Again, from experience, men tend to have more dominant characters where women are naturally more gentle (humble). You can see behavioural differences in young children of different sexes, before they are corrupted by environment lest it is argued that the differences in the hard wiring of the brain is purely environmental and not biological.


Do I sound gentle and humble to you? I've never been that. Before I entered school, I liked to play games. Those games involved running around, saving damsels from distress, or saving guys from witches who wanted to skin them. When I was in first grade, I wanted to play football with a bunch of third-graders. They told me that if I knocked one of them over, I could join them. I tackled him and pushed him to the ground with no hesitation. Oh, and you want to know how I got my nickname? I figured out early on that boys hated to be touched and that the teachers didn't mind friendly physical contact between the students. So I hugged all the boys when I was annoyed at them. They were instantly horrified. One boy in particular shuddered every time a girl touched him, and he was soon afraid of me. I thought it was hilarious.

I never saw any gentleness or humility with the other girls, either. When I was in kindergarten, the girls did all the pushing around. There was one girl in particular who pushed everyone around. She got suspended for a few days for punching another girl. For that matter, we also ran conspiracies on how to get the boys in trouble. And I would like to point out that this was a Christian private school, where girls were actively encouraged by their parents to be gentle and submissive. Heck, girls were sent to the principal's office if we wore pants on Fridays, and they called our parents and made us change before we could return to class. That is not the kind of school that fosters feminine dominance.

I've worked in fast food before, too. I ran the counter. The boys occasionally ran around, but they weren't much of a problem. The girls? They were nightmares. I once had a little girl throw her food at my head and giggle happily. Another one kicked me because her mother wouldn't order her a dessert. And don't even get me started on the women's restroom and all the nightmares in there.

Boys, on the other hand? They were never a problem. Sure, they talked big, but they were cowards when you got them alone. Now, there were a few boys who transferred in later on, and they were very nice at first. However, as they started to make friends, they became complete assholes in order to fit in. I remember one boy who was pretty shy and very polite to everyone for the first few months. Once he started making friends, he started jeering at the girls in the school. He stopped it quickly when it was one on one. Heck, even two on one, the boys were generally scared of the girls.
In my first school, the private school, the girls ran the show. In public school, things were more equal, but the boys did listen to us at first. By middle school, you could see sexual harassment and boys pushing the girls around. And the adults didn't help, either. I had a bus driver who told me to step out of line whenever I was the first one there, so he could let the boys go first. There was also a teacher who told me that if I wanted a boy to stop sexually harassing me, I should just do what he wanted because that was the only way to solve the problem.

In short, my experience has been that girls tend to dominate in the early years of their life, until everyone around them wears them down and makes them shut up.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
A woman is also part of a man (the allegory of being built from men's ribs) - as I know - again from observations, that men feel incomplete without women (like a part of their self is missing), much more so than women would feel incomplete without men.


Really? How about the asexual, aromantic men? They really don't care if women are in their life or not. And how about gay men? They seem to get by fine with no women.

...Who, exactly, have you been observing? Because they don't resemble the humans I know.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
There is a quote that says "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Even after that, I'm sure that there are many more levels of understanding that I myself have not unlocked because I still very much lack the experiences or the relevations.


You want to know the funny thing about that quote? It's a mistranslation. The guy who "said" it was Arthur Schopenhauer, except that what he said doesn't match the tone of it.

"Der Wahrheit ist allerzeit nur ein kurzes Siegesfest beschieden, zwischen den beiden langen ZeitrÄaumen, wo sie als Paradox verdammt und als Trivial gering geschÄatzt wird."

This translates to:

To truth, only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial.

But if you want a pithy saying about truth, how about this?

"Truth, in its struggle for recognition, passes through four distinct stages. First,
we say it is damnable, dangerous, disorderly, and will surely disrupt society.
Second, we declare it is heretical, infidelic and contrary to the Bible. Third, we
say it is a matter of no importance either one way or the other. Fourth, we aver
that we have always upheld and believed it."
- Elbert Hubbard

Almost like whenever someone has a good idea that doesn't sound biblical, someone realizes it's a good idea and then finds a bible verse that "matches" it. That matches my experience.

Quote: Originally posted by wlionrjl
But answers when you have to work hard for it is much more meaningful than when it is given directly to you. Think homework. You can never get a perfect score of 100% on a subjective exam but you can get close.


And how about those of us who are, according to you, unable to find the truth?

Not to mention that you seem to be finding the "truth" from things that say the exact opposite, and are not godly. That scripture I quoted up there? That wasn't written by any god. That was supposedly written by Paul. More importantly, it's from one of the Pastoral Epistles. Those were not written by Paul. The style of writing is completely different from the others, and
The words I quoted are not only that of a fallible man, but might not even have been from one of the apostles.

Now, out of curiosity, how do you feel about these quotes?

"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily..."

"Show kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and the slaves whom your right hands possess."

"The master will never be happy until he is a master. The slave will never be happy until he is a slave."

Or this:

"The Syrians before and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord. Therefore will the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush in one day. The ancient, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows; for every one of them is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For wickedness burneth as the fire; it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forests, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. Through the wrath of the Lord is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire; no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand and they shall not be satisfied; they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm"

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Mad Poster
#450 Old 13th Feb 2016 at 4:58 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 13th Feb 2016 at 5:30 PM.
^That last quote sounds more like a zombie apocalypse to me... Anyway, the logical part of my brain still wants to curl up and die every time I try to read those kinds of religious verses. They sound like they're trying too hard to sound metaphorical, but only end up sounding literal in a very creepy sense. I've never liked clouded language, so I don't think my brain was ever wired for grasping the sense out of religious texts. I don't mind metaphors as long as they make sense, but the religious ones usually don't even try. In my opinion, either say what you mean, or don't say it at all - or at the very least explain what you mean by it.

If you look long enough, you can find quotes in the bible (or other religious texts) that seemingly describe anything, even recent scientific discoveries. But you can also find quotes that show just how ignorant people were back then, of which usually contradict the former. Somebody tried to fit the entire big bang theory into the punctuation mark between two lines in Genesis. And Jesus even managed to say that handwashing wasn't necessary ('cause apparently his 'daddy' hadn't told him about a very important thing called 'germs').

I'm also very opposed to the master-slave relationship that's described in a lot of these texts, particularly in the god-human relationship. "If you don't do exactly what I say, I'll fill your life with terror from here on until eternity, and punish everyone who comes after you!" I mean, come on! Who in their right mind would want to follow someone like that? Following someone out of fear or out of twisted awe is not a healthy relationship.
 
Page 18 of 19
Back to top