Do religious people ACTUALLY believe in their books?

[Coriolis]

I would assume most average practitioners of a faith don't take it literally but only use the holy books as guidelines and interpret the texts in a way that makes most sense to their lives - hence all the branches of major religions.
Atheist here though, this is all based on what I've heard.

Sadly far too many modern believers take their holy books far too literally.

Christians would not engage in human trafficking. Human trafficking is a sin.

And we all know that no Christians sin. Human trafficking is a big problem in some parts of the US, and I guarantee those involved are not predominantly Muslim.

I also find there is a lot of human arrogance regarding "facts", asserting things as true that 20 years from now will change. When it comes to pre-history and holy books, such as the Bible, I see no reason to try and resolve its accounts with "facts", as the facts are not static; but I find the spiritual principles to be timeless. The timelessness is hard for others to grasp, even if they recognize it to a degree, which is why they are always trying to reconcile it to their particular society. They see value in it, but they don't grasp it well enough to not take it too literally, which presents obvious conflicts.

So I don't regard the Bible as a scientific nor historical book, although that doesn't mean I think it is a book of fables. I simply don't believe history and science to be static either, but rather very contextual and shifting as our collective perspective shifts (and this is certainly true of religion also, which I don't equate with the Bible or spirituality itself; see above about people trying to "reconcile"). It is something of a paradox that to understand the spiritual principles in the Bible outside of its context, you have to first grasp it within its context. It is something of a paradox in that to believe, you have to admit that humans (including yourself) don't really know much at all.

For example... Did Noah's flood really happen? Well, I don't know. I wasn't there. The way people understood and presented things back then is pretty different from how reality is interpreted now. The current & past facts become irrelevant, but the spiritual lesson stands. There is no need to reconcile present understanding of the physical world and history with the past understanding of the physical world and history. So when it comes to belief, I believe fully in the Bible as a book of spiritual truths. I have no need to believe it as "factual" in a physical sense, as that would miss the point of it anyway.

I would say it doesn't matter whether Noah's flood really happened. That's not the point. The story exists to explain something about God and his relationship with humanity. It is a fable, and calling it such in no way demeans its message. That is the job of people who insist on seeing it as a historical truth, thereby missing the spiritual truth.

The problem with holy books is that they all have internal contradictions. Some verses support one course of action, while others support the exact opposite. See how easily both the Bible and Quran, for example, can be used to support violence and persecution on the one hand, and charity and compassion on the other. Which behavior a believer demonstrates is thus more a function of the believer than the book, including all the factors that shaped him/her as a person (e.g. culture, upbringing, friends/mentors, hardships, etc.)

Religious motivations are especially effective in the hands of demagogues and despots precisely because they cannot be vetted rationally, and instead play on the very real fears and emotions of the people they are used to influence.

 

[Amargith]

So..which religion was it then that brought slaves to America?

 

[chubber]

So..which religion was it then that brought slaves to America?

Which religion captured them and sold them to the traders?

 

[Amargith]

Which religion captured them and sold them to the traders?

I honestly don't know
I was always taught that it was European slave traders who did so - as far as I know, though, around that period, if you weren't christian in Europe, you kinda got ostracised. It was kind of a cultural requirement.

 

[Lark]

Do irreligious people have beliefs? Are they cognizant of them? Are they any different or better people than the religious for it?

All interesting questions which didnt really come up in this thread. I'd speculate because like most of the criticism of religion per se that I read it lacks depth.

 

[chubber]

I honestly don't know
I was always taught that it was European slave traders who did so - as far as I know, though, around that period, if you weren't christian in Europe, you kinda got ostracised. It was kind of a cultural requirement.

European traders captured some Africans in raids along the coast, but bought most of them from local African or African-European dealers. These dealers had a sophisticated network of trading alliances collecting groups of people together for sale.

Most of the Africans who were enslaved were captured in battles or were kidnapped, though some were sold into slavery for debt or as punishment. The captives were marched to the coast, often enduring long journeys of weeks or even months, shackled to one another. At the coast they were imprisoned in large stone forts, built by European trading companies, or in smaller wooden compounds.

source: The capture and sale of slaves

Would be interesting to hear what religion the conquerors were of these battles.

 

[Amargith]

Would be interesting to hear what religion the conquerors were of these battles.

True, but that makes the european,(likely) christian traders still the essential core part of human trafficking.

I forget, was this before or after the colonisation of Africa, btw?

 

[chubber]

True, but that makes the european,(likely) christian traders still the essential core part of human trafficking.

I forget, was this before or after the colonisation of Africa, btw?

In the 1850s the Ottoman Empire nominally outlawed slavery in much of the Islamic world, but this had only a minor effect on the slave trade. One of the main justifications European powers gave for colonizing nearly the entire African continent during the 1880s and 1890s was the desire to end slave trading and slavery in Africa. By the dawn of the 20th century, European forces had defeated most African slave trading states, and the trans-Saharan and East African slave trades came to an end.

source: Slavery in Africa

Slave practices in Africa were used during different periods to justify specific forms of European engagement with the peoples of Africa. Eighteenth century writers in Europe claimed that slavery in Africa was quite brutal in order to justify the Atlantic slave trade. Later writers used similar arguments to justify intervention and eventual colonization by European powers to end slavery in Africa.

source: Transformations of slavery in Africa

note: this is only focussing on Africa.

 

[Amargith]

Huh. Rationalisation, justification and greed. Sounds about right

 

[chubber]

Huh. Rationalisation, justification and greed. Sounds about right

Somebody needs to write the history books in such a way so that they can sleep at night

 

[tinker683]

I'm sure they do, or at the very least think of them as good reference books for advice and guidance on how to navigate their lives. I suspect however the majority of believers read their own morality back into their religion and find verses or chapters to justify their own values and beliefs.

Which, given the swiss army knife style in which many of these books are written, isn't too difficult.

 

[Poki]

Do irreligious people have beliefs? Are they cognizant of them? Are they any different or better people than the religious for it?

All interesting questions which didnt really come up in this thread. I'd speculate because like most of the criticism of religion per se that I read it lacks depth.

Depends on the person which is the biggest issue religious people have in understanding non-religious people. You can't fit them into a "this is what I believe" category. You can have law abiding people who follow alot of what the bible preaches to people who do everything opposite just because it's who they are. Not because they want to follow God and his plan.

It's a crap shot on better, we have some screwed up religious people who justify themselves through screwed up interpretations and you have screwed up non religious people that really don't need any type of justification. I don't think one is better then the other.

You have the annoying stout bible thumper and the annoying stout anti bible thumpers. Both have read and know the bible inside and out. And will argue to no end about interpretation. Then you have religious people who even though they are religious will argue interpretation to no end and selevate and form their own religious group because of it.

I see alot of judgemental religious people who use gods word of how we should be to judge people as better or not. They are justified because this is what the Bible says, it's how god will judge you. What not judging means is you treat them no different...thinking lesser of someone will automatically cause them to be treated different and outcasted. I once had a preacher say that if you don't believe in God I do not want you at my death bed. I never once went back to his church. I have tried several times to accept god into my life and felt or thought or experienced nothing. My life was the same, I was the same. Do i really care? No, I have no problems living my own life the way I see fit and following who I am. The people around me that are religious really like who I am and what I do. I can and will argue life lessons and disagree. Others argue for the bible and then still do things as if the disagreed. It's really a moot point in my opinion and irregardless of religion we can teach love and kindness and all the good things in life we need to teach. Religion is not the only way to teach it. You don't need to spout bible verses to teach what we should do as people. Honestly, those who don't believe could careless about verses, they are just some set of words in a book that is nothing other then a story.


I am dating a religious person, not a bible thumper, but someone religious. I follow alot of the same beliefs.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[chubber]

Well the Calvinists were kicked from France centuries ago... rinse and repeat. I guess it's not the exact same thing, but did they do the right thing back then? Is it applicable today?

Some people really just need guidance and for them it works if they take it literally. But it comes with its down side.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

This is so ridiculously wrong that I'm laughing. But I shouldn't because there are too many delusional people that think just like you.

I mean REAL Christians. Those who embody Christ.

Not those who call themselves Christians.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I mean REAL Christians. Those who embody Christ.

Not those who call themselves Christians.

No true Scotsman!

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I honestly don't know
I was always taught that it was European slave traders who did so - as far as I know, though, around that period, if you weren't christian in Europe, you kinda got ostracised. It was kind of a cultural requirement.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade wasn't the only slave business in Africa. The Islamic east also participated and in greater numbers actually. When Africans would capture other Africans to sell to the traders they would either go West or East. Though both were horrible the East was particularly gruesome. Men and women slaves would regularly have their reproductive parts mutilated as a way of control for example. Sadly, in the modern West, we only learn how evil the West was so we feel guilty enough to apologize today and cough up resources to people who believe they are entitled to them.

 

[Amargith]

Sigh. It's insane what people do to others. Even to this day. And the moronic justifications for it are...too numerous to count.

 

[Zangetshumody]

For my post in a somewhat related thread (which i just recently edited for clarity), i already remarked:
"''
In my experience therefore, conversion doesn't happen; but then I wouldn't say I've come across anyone who was a real seeker. I imagine you have to be able to have an open discussion with someone who is still looking into the questions of faith, who is trying to understand all the various different systems of belief inside each possible perspective "''

If there were a group of Christians that realized that biblical Christianity depicted from the bible had a philosophy that they don't yet understand, in a culture they don't themselves attain to [as it's recorded in scripture in such a way that does not make sense to themselves].. then you have something real to spiritually work on, instead of trusting in a label of group thinking, to share in its worldly authority for yourself.

To directly answer the original post: if so called Christians took the KJV seriously, they would know it takes your own honest coordinated efforts [that you have direct access or oversight over the coordination], when making any real ground in understanding spirituality:- and so believing in the bible should concern them with: what they cant yet relate to, within whatever independent drive for their faith they'd wish to claim.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Yeah, you can't lump all religious people in one camp as far as this question goes. When it comes to holy books there are radically divergent interpretations from the literal to the spiritual. When I was a Christian I was in a denomination that had a literal-metaphorical interpretation of the Bible. I know that sounds convoluted(it actually is but I understood their rationale). For instance the book of Genesis. They believed that a 6 day creation did take place like the Bible narrates but they were hesitant to define what '6 days' actually meant to God or where or what exactly was the Garden of Eden other than it just existed in some fashion. The Bible was CONSTANTLY referenced and we did 3-4 Bible studies a week ( a lot of which I organized and taught) but it was interpreted largely with spiritual meaning ( i.e. not literal but somehow still true - they would say through the 'holy spirit') and our denomination basically disregarded dogma like the Trinity but rather tried to interpret the Bible on its own terms ( at least in our translation).

 

[Coriolis]

So..which religion was it then that brought slaves to America?

No religion brought slaves to America. The slave trade was conducted by humans whose primary motivation was economic gain. Given the times and culture, most probably claimed to be Christian. As such, and within a largely Christian society, they attempted to justify their actions on the basis of Christian doctrine. Had they been Muslims, Jews, or whatever else, they would have used those teachings instead.