Religion. Thread

Keep in mind that the Bible may have at one point been the word of God, but it's been cannibalized and edited and translated and sanitized and re-translated and re-edited so many times that it's not even close to what it originally was.

Things taken out of the current mainstream Bible

• Reincarnation. The original Bible referenced reincarnation extensively, but I can imagine a bunch of Cardinals and Bishops omitting this because "Oh, we can't have people believing there's second chances!"
• Some of Jesus's seedier stories, like how he was playing on the roof with a kid, the kid fell off, and Jesus brought him back to life to testify that Jesus didn't kill him but that he fell to his death.
• The entire book of Enoch.
• Originally the Bible had a lot more "don'ts" than "dos" so the Bible was extensively re-written so as to not give people ideas.

If you doubt that a bunch of monks and bishops and whatnot would extensively rewrite the good book, remember this is the same group of assholes who started the Crusades, invented the concept of "the devil" (Pope Innocent III in the 13th century), and thought that it'd be really fun to torture people who didn't believe in the same invisible deity they did. The last official Spanish Inquisition witch burning was in EIGHTEEN FUCKING TWELVE. So much for the Enlightenment Age.

"The Devil" is a construct of the Roman Catholic Church as a personification of our sins. People confuse The Devil with Satan/Lucifer. They are not the same. Satan/Lucifer was an Angel who coveted the power of God and attempted to overthrow him, and God pretty much laughed at the attempt and said "Okay, you can have my power, but instead of eternal bliss you can get eternal pain and suffering, enjoy."

I mean specific events, such as the crusades, witch-burning, etc etc etc
But if a good deity tells you to do something unjust, such as, say, robbing a bank, does that make the deity still good?

It'd kinda' be suspicious that the same amount of money robbed from a source was transferred to a Orphanage. So no.

Hey, I stole the max FDIC insured amount. The government will replenish his money.

Do you believe that there are things in this world that are just inherently good, and things that inherently bad? Things like hard work makes you feel good inside, but overworking has a detrimental effect. And I mean things that have a lasting good feeling, and not some quick cop out like drugs.

Edited by: Wiweeyum

Oh I thought that Devil and Satan are the same. Exuse me. Or they are really the same?

Wars, ignorance and hate are only necessary outcomes of religious thought to the necessarily ignorant mind.

It can be a positive self-serving delusion, many people are not equipped to function without gross delusions. Personally I find that sometimes I envy those who have some construct to hide behind, whether it be religion, empiricism, rationality, fantasy or obsession.

Well what's the difference between Devil and Satan then? Could you explain?

Yes you're right, but that doesn't make them different. They are still the same person. It's like Queen vs. Elisabeth. Since Satan doesn't have a body, and can not die, Devil and Satan go together hand in hand.

A specific contention is why you presume finite beings require an origin; we're discussing an absolute beginning when you say origin as opposed to a beginning of the current form, I assume. Being we are natural in all respects yet identified, we are emergent from the cosmos which does not require an explanation of absolute beginning either.

What a senseless method for a being of supposedly limitless power. I'm sure you'll use the simplicity of the example in your defense, but I find this telling that you think the butchering of a child would be an adequate solution; anyone here could hand the father a condom to solve the solution without violence and without suffering.

I would like the mathematical and scientific proof that there are no unicorns. A lack of either and/or both does not mean suddenly unicorns exist nor that I am justified in believing in their existence as the impetus is not upon the null position to disprove positive claims asserted without evidence, and I am still deluded for believing in the existence of unicorns despite the inevitable veracity of the statements. Further, intelligence is no defense against protecting oneself from your own logic.

Due to the exposure of the subject of priests molesting children and the actions of groups, especially the Catholic church's contempt of lawful investigation into the allegations, I don't disbelieve some amount of the allegations of molestation are from angstful or attention-desiring youths; anymore, a child merely needs to blame failing grades or some anarchy on being molested to ruin the life of the priest, and one can create false memories especially with widespread belief and constant recitation. Not to say I immediately assume guilt of either party, but I merely note this is neither as prevalent nor as straightforward as most believe.

I consider G.W. Bush a war criminal and profiteer and can give a plethora of examples as to why he, his administration, and the divisiveness fostered by them were the worst thing to happen to this country since raised tax prices on tea; however, he has no capacity to legislate, minimal capacity to arbitrate regarding existing legislation, and, while certain people can obfuscate religiously motivated legislation, such a law as suggested would fail the Lemon test in every aspect. I cannot see him nor his administration being so moronic as to allow the suggestion be broached, much less creating damning evidence which would be required for such a claim.

Notice, the King of Tyre and Lucifer both receive a similar wording befitting the fall of self-envisioned Babylonian, Sumerian, etc., god-kings, especially when we consider the context of the Old Testament where Yahweh would not be the only power, merely the most powerful. Satan, however, has a very distinct story which are not echoed for the King of Tyre nor Lucifer except where, as said, befitting the fall of self-envisioned god-kings. Nothing is specified regarding interrelatedness of the characters, and the transposition is one of the many mistakes found in the King James' Version which has created significant problems in arguing theology.

Edited by: Vangor

w1ngzer0, I stated that ignorance and hate were not necessary results of religion, in response to the rather presumptuous judgment of my earlier statement by eezstreet. I believe you misinterpreted that component of my response, and I apologize for a lack of clarity in the initial statement.

How could I prove the absence of something within the constraints of science? You are asking the methodologically impossible, even when operating from basic axioms. You can only record what you observe, not what you do not observe. We cannot say all swans are white, no matter how many white swans we see - the existence of this or that many white swans does not preclude the possibility of a black swan. I cannot offer you a scientific proof that there is no god, nor would I presume to try.

I simply consider the adherence to religion a form of self-delusion which simplifies reality by introducing meanings and standards - in itself, little different from, say, blind faith in science itself. There is no rational completion to existence, we cannot describe all there is to experience. The rational scientific perspective is itself a positive self-serving delusion - it simplifies reality so people can function within it. Rational "facts" are beliefs supported by data, the value of which is generated once again by belief in observation and particular organizational rules. At best the rules of religion and science both seek to approximate reality as closely as possible, yet with defined boundaries for the sake of human thought. In a way, it is all positivist delusion.

Addendum: I find the discussion of good and justice rather misguided. "Good" is the extreme of a basic binary we use to describe intrinsic morality, there are degrees of good but without a modifier there is no way to weight the "Good" in the example on the binary, and thus no way for people to ensure consistent interpretation. In addition, justice is commonly established across the domains of law, morality and rationality, but it can be a different specific binary depending on the constructor. At a rudimentary level, justice can be applied moral good, but unless you establish that explicitly, it does not automatically overlap with your ideal construct of good itself.

Edited by: neddiedrow