Do religious people ACTUALLY believe in their books?

[Lark]

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.

Dude, dont go hating on the judgers

 

[Passacaglia]

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

As Poki has elaborated, of course we do. They just happen to be beliefs about how people ought to treat each other, how society ought to work, the nature of the universe, which kind of economies are best, which politicians are best, and so on. Our beliefs simply don't come from a book of fairy tales.

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.

Instead of derailing a thread you're under no obligation to even read, you could always start one to ask your admirably deep questions. I'm sure that many of us would be happy to talk about our beliefs.

 

[Lark]

As Poki has elaborated, of course we do. They just happen to be beliefs about how people ought to treat each other, how society ought to work, the nature of the universe, which kind of economies are best, which politicians are best, and so on. Our beliefs simply don't come from a book of fairy tales.

Or thousands of years of experience and scholarly thought, they only ever will be a product of on individual's years and contemporary character, which I think is pretty sad, the same as dismissing the corner stone of western civilisation as a book of fairy tales but then I'm not sure you realised typing that what you were doing. Its not untypical. Which I know a lot of athiests find reassuring. After all everyone is doing it, right?

Instead of derailing a thread you're under no obligation to even read, you could always start one to ask your admirably deep questions. I'm sure that many of us would be happy to talk about our beliefs.

Yeah, I'll add you to the list of people who'd prefer I dont read posts and threads then.

Its alright, I can see how defensive you are about this, sorry for provoking the feels.

 

[Coriolis]

Or thousands of years of experience and scholarly thought, they only ever will be a product of on individual's years and contemporary character, which I think is pretty sad, the same as dismissing the corner stone of western civilisation as a book of fairy tales but then I'm not sure you realised typing that what you were doing. Its not untypical. Which I know a lot of athiests find reassuring. After all everyone is doing it, right?

I would hardly call the Bible or the Quran scholarly. They are also far from the only longstanding sources of wisdom that have stood the tests of time. Some of these are in fact fairy tales or fables. It is not dismissive to identify a book or story as such. It is short-sighted and limited in thinking to dismiss the possibility of wisdom in such accounts, not to mention the many historical, philosophical, and scientific writings written through the ages that would more rightly be designated as scholarly.

Yeah, I'll add you to the list of people who'd prefer I dont read posts and threads then.

Its alright, I can see how defensive you are about this, sorry for provoking the feels.

How about addressing some of those "interesting questions which didnt really come up in this thread" rather than accusing those who don't of lacking depth. Don't worry about derailing in this case. If it is a derail, we can simply split it off into its own thread. If there is legitimate discussion to be had, have at it.

 

[Beorn]

I would hardly call the Bible or the Quran scholarly. They are also far from the only longstanding sources of wisdom that have stood the tests of time. Some of these are in fact fairy tales or fables. It is not dismissive to identify a book or story as such. It is short-sighted and limited in thinking to dismiss the possibility of wisdom in such accounts, not to mention the many historical, philosophical, and scientific writings written through the ages that would more rightly be designated as scholarly.

Wow.
Really bent over backwards for that backhanded compliment.

 

[Coriolis]

Wow.
Really bent over backwards for that backhanded compliment.

What do you think I am complimenting? I tend to make observations. Sometimes they are complimentary, and sometimes not.

 

[OrangeAppled]

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.

Honestly, this is the kind of the black and white thinking I was referring to, though.

A fable implies it was all made up. But I think Noah was a real man, with a real relationship with God, and I think he went through a flood. Was it a physical, literal flood? I don't know, but the details make it seem unlikely. I do think he spiritually and emotionally went through a "flood". So I don't think it was a fable; I think it was real. The difference between me and most people is I don't think the physical world is anymore real than the spiritual, mental and emotional aspects of reality.

Another interesting Biblical story that sounds fantastic is Jonah and the whale. Could a man really be swallowed and survive inside a whale for days? Seems highly unlikely, from a factual and physical standpoint. But I think he was someone who was stubborn and lacked humility, found himself in a heinously bad situation, and came out of it with a big change in attitude.

However, if scriptures were to say Jonah went through an emotionally excruciatingly bad situation until he developed humility, and God still sustained him during it despite his bad attitude, then it would not have the same impact. The mental picture of him being swallowed and enduring the inside of a whale's belly and taking DAYS to be humbled to the point of finally asking God for help is a striking image. This is an image which hits on our unconcious; we understand it on the emotional and spiritual level. This teaches us to think in those terms, and not strictly in physical terms. In those terms, he was really inside of a whale. It was real, just not physical.

I understand now why poetry is not a mainstream thing either. People in general just don't understand spiritual, emotional, symbolic, and poetic language.

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.)

I already addressed the problem with most people's interpretations...
And yes, that has little to do with scripture, although that itself does not show scripture to be inconsistent.

Humans are inconsistent and contradictory.

If you have a two year old child and a 16 year child, do you deal with them the same way?
Why not?
And if not, does this make you inconsistent?

I personally have not found the Bible to be inconsistent nor contradictory in message when understood properly. I am comfortable with people having different interpretations, just not when they impose their on mine as a way to degrade my intelligence.

Anyway, as I noted, I don't seek debate, because it wastes my energy.
It always becomes clear to me how poorly others grasp why some people believe a certain way. They almost always erect a strawman and are very off base as to what others believe and why. To fully explain my very different viewpoint, I'd have to go really heavily into explaining scripture, and I don't particularly feel like doing that (nor do I think anyone else wants to go there). It is often futile anyway, as others don't really want to understand different perspectives.

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.

Fear is lack of faith though. Although I agree that institutions manipulate people and leaders may use religion as a vehicle for their own agendas.

I mean, most of the Muslims I know are as horrified by terroism and violent acts as anyone else. It hurts them to be associated with this. While I am not hugely familiar with the Koran and have no motivation to defend it, it doesn't appear the average Muslim gets such an extreme message from it. The Pakistani Muslims I know are very warm, hospitable, accepting people. They have pretty normal human concerns for family, security, stability, peace, etc. The power plays of extremists are more about politics than any kind of genuine spirituality, which most religion seeks to cultivate despite people's efforts to contaminate it.

 

[Coriolis]

Honestly, this is the kind of the black and white thinking I was referring to, though.

A fable implies it was all made up. But I think Noah was a real man, with a real relationship with God, and I think he went through a flood. Was it a physical, literal flood? I don't know, but the details make it seem unlikely. I do think he spiritually and emotionally went through a "flood". So I don't think it was a fable; I think it was real. The difference between me and most people is I don't think the physical world is anymore real than the spiritual, mental and emotional aspects of reality.

Having some grains of truth doesn't disqualify something from being a fable or myth. The world contains plenty of tortoises and hares, and there was a historical St Nicholas. That doesn't mean the two animals actually had a foot race, or that a flesh-and-blood fellow dressed in red delivers gifts to children on Christmas Eve. Nor does the fact that these things didn't/don't really happen spoil what the stories have to tell us. It is hard to appreciate the message of allegory and metaphor when one is focused on establishing historical or scientific validity.

Humans are inconsistent and contradictory.

If you have a two year old child and a 16 year child, do you deal with them the same way?
Why not?
And if not, does this make you inconsistent?

A better question would be whether one parent and the other, and the grandparents, and the babysitter, and the nextdoor neighbor all deal with the children in the same manner. The bible was compiled from accounts whose origins span many generations, geographic regions, and even cultures. The many contradictions that result are not a problem unless the reader views it all as prescriptive. Then you can get any prescription you want, depending on which sections you choose. Understanding it all as descriptive means you are to use it for background information, but not take your marching orders directly from any single part.

Fear is lack of faith though. Although I agree that institutions manipulate people and leaders may use religion as a vehicle for their own agendas.

Not necessarily. Plenty of people with strong faith have done harmful and foolish things out of fear of eternal damnation. That's pretty hard to argue against when it is all you know. Such fear is rooted in ignorance, which many religious groups encourage.

I mean, most of the Muslims I know are as horrified by terroism and violent acts as anyone else. It hurts them to be associated with this. While I am not hugely familiar with the Koran and have no motivation to defend it, it doesn't appear the average Muslim gets such an extreme message from it. The Pakistani Muslims I know are very warm, hospitable, accepting people. They have pretty normal human concerns for family, security, stability, peace, etc. The power plays of extremists are more about politics than any kind of genuine spirituality, which most religion seeks to cultivate despite people's efforts to contaminate it.

Yes. The average Christian doesn't get messages of racial hatred or homophobia from the Bible either, though we are still working on the gender bias end of things. I am thus less defending the Quran or criticising the Bible than showing how neither is any better than the other. All religions of the book are this way.

 

[great_bay]

Are there people out there who would believe in a Superman comic book?

 

[erm]

I thought this was an interesting point.
The point being: does the religious folk ACTUALLY believe in their religion.

By which I mean: if they did really think that the Bible or Quran or whichever is god-sent then... Why don't the follow these books ?

Well Obama said all those Sandy Hook children went to heaven and yet painted the event as a tragedy. A pretty glaring contradiction. I do think some monastic lifestyles and more extreme devotions do cause people to believe their religion in a much more significant way. Otherwise I think most of those particular Christians who claim those kids went to heaven actually have more significant brain activity believing them dead, hence still treating it as a tragedy rather than a farewell. It's definitely not a simple issue though.

Belief is a murky folk-concept, and the best way I know of handling it is a comparison to mundane concepts like "email is real" and "I am capable of walking", which we believe in a more straightforward manner. So, I guess, you could measure the difference in behavior between religious and non-religious people vs difference in stated beliefs. I'm pretty sure the difference between beliefs is usually much bigger. That said I think that's hardly unique to religion. The evidence is that far more mundane environmental factors and hardwired genetic factors control our actions and mindsets than the loftier side to religious and other conscious worldview beliefs, and that those beliefs are after-effects of those mundane factors more than anything else.

 

[Andy]

To be fair, most religious books tend to be thick as door steps, so I'm not entirely unsympathetic to those theists that haven't memorised them word for word. It doesn't help much that most of them appear to contradict themselves. On top of that, many religions contain longstanding ideas or traditions that do not come from their holy books, but are still a part of that faith. Theologians spend years studying such things. Expecting every theist to do the same is probably a little unfair. That said, some believers do seem a little lazy about checking their source material, even within these considerations.

 

[Kullervo]

Yes but how can they?
I mean, if GOD tells you to stone gays, and GOD tells you that slavery is good through an ANGEL.
That is not something to take as SECOND DEGREE.

That is a commandment from God, creator of the universe.

That's not something NOT TO take literally.

If God is divine he can supervene the physical world and is therefore perfect.
Therefore his works are also

The contradictions littered through the Bible are therefore proof against God's existence. I am a former Christian, and I can say that it is impossible to be a "true Christian" because there are so many different injunctions for any given aspect of faith. For example, does one go to heaven through faith, works, or is our fate preordained?

And so on.

N.B. Interestingly, Islam is different in this way. It contains a principle called abrogation whereby if there is a contradiction between two verses, the verse written later (in time) supervenes that written earlier. The result is that the Qu'ran is even more violent than people realise.

 

[Mole]

The best way to induce a trance in another is to first enter the trance oneself. On this basis, the bible and other sacred books were written in a trance, and they induce a trance in their readers.

In a trance, our critical mind goes to sleep for a while, and we believe whatever we are told. So trance is necessary for religious belief.

 

[Lark]

Aye, I do.

 

[Masokissed]

hahahaheqioasha

God exists in a parallel universe.
Do parallel universes exist is what y'all shulda been askin'

 

[Mole]

We believe in sacred texts in the same way we believe in the movies. The only difference is that we cease believing the moment we leave the movie theatre, but we don't cease believing when we leave our Church, Synagogue, Mosque, or Temple.








osque or temple

 

[GIjade]

hahahaheqioasha

God exists in a parallel universe.
Do parallel universes exist is what y'all shulda been askin'

Haha, she looks like my neighbor's dog, Bethie. I love dogs, but that one's a bit of a slobbering idiot. Not spayed, so attracts all the hounds, and well, you know...

 

[Masokissed]

Haha, you look like my neighbor's dog, Bethie. I love dogs, but that one's a bit of a slobbering idiot. Not spayed, so attracts all the hounds, and well, you know...

That's not me.

 

[fetus]

I cherry-pick like the awful Christian I am.

 

[Hawthorne]

I cherry-pick like the awful Christian I am.

Same.