what a joke. The study of the Bible is like taking books and letters from thousands of years ago and studying them. Researching the authors, the environments they lived in, the audiences they were writing to, the historical context in which the books were written. With that information, you look at the text itself, work back through years of translation to the original language to get a glimpse of what the author truly meant. Then, once you have formed a picture of what the author truly meant, you reflect on your own life, and how you can apply these words and messages, from a different time and place, to your own life. No thinking and introspection in that...
While I certainly have issues with Christianity as a whole, the message from Jesus remained consistent, and in a good way. DD
awesome. completely agreed. that is all i care about in this whole mess. in all of these discussions. sometimes i use the word religion to mean one thing...and i speak negative about it. but i find myself defending it when someone else attacks it, because i'm not sure what it is they're attacking. it's why i love the simplicity of james: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)
Irony writ large. Whenever I see this painting my first thoughts are that God is an old fart of European descent and this is a clear example of man creating God in his own image rather than vice versa. This is certainly a nuanced perspective and dare I say an intellectual perspective. I suspect that people more intellectual than I may have an even more nuanced perspective, one that I may or may not understand. Now I might feel stupid for not understanding but that in and of itself does not make the perspective and the owner thereof arrogant.
don't be such a literalist! it's art. it's a characterization of a concept we can't fully grasp. if there really is a being that really did create this entire universe, then painting a picture of him literally isn't going to be possible. no more so than paiting a picture of the universe he created is. we can catch glimpses and use metaphor. Moses asked to see God...God basically said, "the best you can do is see where I just was." The Greek imagery is not at all..not even remotely...the God presented in the Bible or in Jewish tradition.
This attitude really interests me. Does this mean the four Boy Scouts who were killed in a tornado in Iowa weren't enough of a "prayer warrior"? That the literally tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of people without homes due to flooding in Iowa simply weren't good enough to save? The idea of praising a diety when good things happen but just accepting bad things has always struck me as a bit odd.
It is for that reason that a good friend of mine and former pastor left the church he created. He got tired of saying "it is god's will"........when in reality....he felt that it was just natural circumstances. DD
Difficult question for sure. I'll note that the Bible never provided a rose garden for those closest to God. Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest man who ever walked the planet...he had his head chopped off. Jesus, himself, talked about not having a place to rest his head and was ultimately beaten and crucified. The earliest believers clearly encountered suffering...to label yourself a Christian was a near death sentence in those days. It's not that they thought they were immune to suffering...it's that they sought to respond to it differently, out of love.
Thats one perspective... or you could say God gave hundreds of thousands of people homes for years and protected them from castatrophe. Losing a home or a loved one is pain, intense pain. But it can also strengthen you. My dad died when I was 12. It was horrible. I asked God, "Why?" for years. I still don't know "why" but I do know that I am a stronger person becasue of it. I try to appreciate things more now. I don't take a day for granted. I try to cherish each moment I spend with someone. I enjoy life more now, and I see the blessings He has given me very clearly.
Good post. I agree with some principles, but not its conclusions. Hmm, are you saying that there's a burden upon religious people, who emphasize "life's value", to adhere to a higher and consistent standard? How would atheists approach eliminating something like animal testing, when it's seen as a crucial process for scientific advancement? Evolved or not, religion has been time tested, so there's some truth or value behind it. It's as much cultural history as it is evolving with the demands of current society. I believe the role of religion and philosophy is to further the personal exploration of one's mind and life. Plenty of challenges and introspection. Even philosophy can't wholly offer what religion is proposing. Among its themes are: that things are beyond your control, that you are a part of something greater, and to accept and submit to your surroundings. The more you dig into a subject, the more flaws you're going to see, like the surface of a diamond. There's raging scientific debates among experts on matters publicly accepted such as gravity. Those debates aren't seen or understood on the layman level. Most just assume that since computers and microwaves work, then science itself works. It's that implicit acceptance/reliance that makes some scientifically inclined people less ready for introspection. In the age of specialized labor, we have to trust the work of others more and more, and that leaves us intellectually unbalanced on many fronts. The desire to supercharge our school system on quantitatively testable subjects reflects our society's lost priorities of a developed intellectual mind. So it isn't a flaw of religious people. It's human trait and vice upon those who don't feel the need to challenge commonly accepted things. There are religious people who challenge and test the writings of their faith daily. Some even relish it and form stronger bonds with their spirituality. I welcome that as much as I'd oppose and ridicule backwater fundamentalists who do more to hate and discourage than to follow their religion's doctrine of love and tolerance. The recent Pope already acknowledges that evolution and faith can coexist. He didn't use the American variant of Intelligent Design to further his assertion. I agree. I don't like the concept of abortion but I realize that if a woman doesn't want it, she'll find ways to get rid of it. Given a choice, pills or early term abortions are way better than grisly operations needed to terminate later one. We live in a pretty messed up culture of deferred responsibilities. It's a constant debate in religions on whether to impose its beliefs upon others or to tolerate and respect. For example, Asian cultures believe life begins at conception and counts the age of a person accordingly. Yet there's a lot of abortions going on in China and Japan. It's seen as quick and easy, almost crucial in the pacing and demands of their society. What good is that belief when people don't uphold it? It's a tough line to tread between respecting and imposing. So many people try to respect individual actions, but use their voting rights to impose their ideological will. But in that respect it becomes a philosophical argument on democracy than a critique against religion. I don't know a lick about tort reform, but if given a vote, I'd vote against it because I feel lawyers get too much. Obviously, there's at least two compelling sides to the matter. Ask another guy to decide about land rights, and he might look to the Bible because it's the only book he has deeply read on the issue. Or maybe Abdullah doesn't really think the Koran compels him to despise/destroy the Great Satan, but his country's national pride and livelihood is at stake. That ability to impose and judge is not an exclusively religious matter. Wars have raged on other ideals. Nationalism is still strong inside secular nations. Ethnic cleansing, genocides and political purges still go on... I don't deny there's some backward ass beliefs shrouded in what some Holy Book supposedly says. Female genital mutilation or an abstinence only sex ed policy come to mind. But in the debate on moral limits to science, I think that's a question everyone asks in some form or other. It's just that religious groups ask louder, possibly sooner. There's no way to be correct all the time, and in your point about abortion, does that allow the woman absolute control? Can she decide to carry the fetus until her 7th trimester, and for no reason abort it then? It's not cut and dried or black and white. Atheists show hubris when they think in absolutes just as much as some believers can. Some atheists want God to be proven only so they can see God too, as if they're potential born-again candidates. A lot of it goes into our cultural approach to religion, typically displayed as an Old Man in the sky who rewards and punishes out of superficial deeds. But there's a lot more to religion that penetrates deeper than the cultural surface. I'd think an introspective thinker would welcome the tradition of thought and exploration in theology and related works instead of reading selectively to validate a foregone conclusion.
I don't pretend to know. I'm asked to trust God that all things work together for good, often I'm not able, and sometimes I reject it completely. But when I am able, it takes me remembering that I don't know the whole picture, and God certainly does.
To me what would be more interesting is to see percentages of educated believers in each religion. Looking at this link it looks like Hindus are the most educated in America Just take High School education as a baseline....... I would be willing to bet that some religions have a fairly high education level amongst it's believers while others have a vast majority of it's believers with very little education. Because to me, how can you call yourself a true believer if you have not been exposed to other beliefs and made your own choice. If the state, your parents, and your religious leader all teach the same thing without any discourse about other beliefs, it significantly weakens their base. If you chose your religion by freedom of choice, in an educated manner, that holds more water than being force fed nothing else. DD
It is not just Religion but everything Capitalist clown Communist . .with only the most base of understandings of Communist One Science will disrespect another Science [some say Sociology/psychology are not *real* sciences] that is just folx being folx Rocket River
No doubt about that..... You would hope that as people get integrated, they are free to make their own choices.... Too bad in many countries that is not the case. DD
Yes, that's what I am saying. If you are going to say that a single cell is filled with life then shouldn't all life that results in consious beings be sacred? Should a fully developed monkey - shouldn't that life have more rights then a single cell? If you are absolutely against abortion, then i think there's a ethical dilemna there. Do I think a 7 month term pregnancy - should be allowed an abortion? No. I don't. to me that's too late. Because that fetus is nearly able to survive as a premature baby. But are we conscious entities when we are babies? Probably not as science has shown us that our earliest memories are not before the first year. What I am saying is that it isn't cut an dry, but it's dangerous to apply religion as the entire ethical code just as it would be to apply science as the entire code for how things should proceed. I just think the balance is tipped to heavily toward religion. And I don't think religion is the only source of morality. Humanity is blessed with an inherent system of morality. And Evolved or not, religion has been time tested, so there's some truth or value behind it. It's as much cultural history as it is evolving with the demands of current society. I believe the role of religion and philosophy is to further the personal exploration of one's mind and life. Plenty of challenges and introspection. Even philosophy can't wholly offer what religion is proposing. Among its themes are: that things are beyond your control, that you are a part of something greater, and to accept and submit to your surroundings. The more you dig into a subject, the more flaws you're going to see, like the surface of a diamond. There's raging scientific debates among experts on matters publicly accepted such as gravity. Those debates aren't seen or understood on the layman level. Most just assume that since computers and microwaves work, then science itself works. It's that implicit acceptance/reliance that makes some scientifically inclined people less ready for introspection. In the age of specialized labor, we have to trust the work of others more and more, and that leaves us intellectually unbalanced on many fronts. The desire to supercharge our school system on quantitatively testable subjects reflects our society's lost priorities of a developed intellectual mind. So it isn't a flaw of religious people. It's human trait and vice upon those who don't feel the need to challenge commonly accepted things. There are religious people who challenge and test the writings of their faith daily. Some even relish it and form stronger bonds with their spirituality. I welcome that as much as I'd oppose and ridicule backwater fundamentalists who do more to hate and discourage than to follow their religion's doctrine of love and tolerance. The recent Pope already acknowledges that evolution and faith can coexist. He didn't use the American variant of Intelligent Design to further his assertion. I agree. I don't like the concept of abortion but I realize that if a woman doesn't want it, she'll find ways to get rid of it. Given a choice, pills or early term abortions are way better than grisly operations needed to terminate later one. We live in a pretty messed up culture of deferred responsibilities. It's a constant debate in religions on whether to impose its beliefs upon others or to tolerate and respect. For example, Asian cultures believe life begins at conception and counts the age of a person accordingly. Yet there's a lot of abortions going on in China and Japan. It's seen as quick and easy, almost crucial in the pacing and demands of their society. What good is that belief when people don't uphold it? It's a tough line to tread between respecting and imposing. So many people try to respect individual actions, but use their voting rights to impose their ideological will. But in that respect it becomes a philosophical argument on democracy than a critique against religion. I don't know a lick about tort reform, but if given a vote, I'd vote against it because I feel lawyers get too much. Obviously, there's at least two compelling sides to the matter. Ask another guy to decide about land rights, and he might look to the Bible because it's the only book he has deeply read on the issue. Or maybe Abdullah doesn't really think the Koran compels him to despise/destroy the Great Satan, but his country's national pride and livelihood is at stake. That ability to impose and judge is not an exclusively religious matter. Wars have raged on other ideals. Nationalism is still strong inside secular nations. Ethnic cleansing, genocides and political purges still go on... I don't deny there's some backward ass beliefs shrouded in what some Holy Book supposedly says. Female genital mutilation or an abstinence only sex ed policy come to mind. But in the debate on moral limits to science, I think that's a question everyone asks in some form or other. It's just that religious groups ask louder, possibly sooner. There's no way to be correct all the time, and in your point about abortion, does that allow the woman absolute control? Can she decide to carry the fetus until her 7th trimester, and for no reason abort it then? It's not cut and dried or black and white. Atheists show hubris when they think in absolutes just as much as some believers can. Some atheists want God to be proven only so they can see God too, as if they're potential born-again candidates. A lot of it goes into our cultural approach to religion, typically displayed as an Old Man in the sky who rewards and punishes out of superficial deeds. But there's a lot more to religion that penetrates deeper than the cultural surface. I'd think an introspective thinker would welcome the tradition of thought and exploration in theology and related works instead of reading selectively to validate a foregone conclusion.[/QUOTE] I think there is a burden of consistency that's lacking in a great deal of religious teachings. Religion hasn't explained why a single human cell is sacred but that the life of a fully developed ape is not. Yes religion has a cultural, and definitely humanistic value. We are all relgious at one time or another. No one is born an atheist. It's formative in our development of ethics along with our family and parents. But the question is - do we need as humans to believe in something greater - as in a metaphysical all powerful being - in order to prosper as both individuals and a society. Perhaps as a society, but not as individuals i would propose. And when the values and beliefs of a group comes in conflict with pramagtic solutions (and yes, it goes beyond religion) you have a negative impact on the society as a whole. But getting back to the original question - why is there a coorelation between intelligence and lack of religious faith - i'd like to propose a hypothesis that might not be too offensive to those who are religious. After a great deal of introspection (and i don't mean challenging one's faith only, but facing one's own fears and and illusions rather) - you may find that you don't need faith in order to be a fulfilled person. That instead of god filling you inside, that perhaps there's something else. That you can become self-reliant. That the existence of a god isn't necessary to make your life meaningful. That you don't have to be part of something greater on a cosmic level to bring contentment or peace, or accept the hardships of life.
This is one of the most interesting threads I can remember in recent months. I know some extremely intelligent folks, and some not so intelligent, as it relates to book smarts. I tried to take a mental "inventory" of who believes what, and it seems to be a pretty evenly mixed bag. For me, it was a series of experiences that led me to God. My intelligence leads me to explore, to doubt, to question, and to search. But my experiences (past and ongoing) ultimately always land me right back in the same place - faith in Jesus Christ. One experience in particular was the lynch pin that made me say, "OK, God, you got me." Some time ago, I would be afraid to read something like this thread, for fear it might cause me to doubt, and I was afraid my faith would not stand the test. Not the case anymore. As for the Bible, I tend to agree with Max....user's guide? Nah. Sure, it has some good principles to live by, but by and large (to me) it's a collection of writings that I can use to learn about my savior, how he lived, where he went, what he did, and why he did it. That's pretty cool to me. Several years ago, I finally stopped needing to have every answer to every question related to who God is, what my purpose is/was, and every other nuance that I felt I needed to prove God's existence. Once I asked Him to reveal himself to me, He did. I still question things, doubt things, search for answers, but like I said....I land in the same place again afterwards. I'm not really sure how any of what I just typed pertains to the actual thread topic. Just thought I'd chime in. Funny, I was just thinking that my first several years on this board were before I became a believer. I'd love to go back and see some of those posts. Ha....
