I'm thinking of becoming religious

How can you run from what you do not know. No it is those who know the truth that run.

The gate is no test, it is but one more choice in life.



none are good, not one. Not you not me.

Don't be happy, for I am mourning the death of one close to me.

 

Paraphrased:

"My understanding and interpretation of the bible is correct! Everyone else just misuses it to fill their agendas!"

All the other Christian sects are saying the exact same thing about you.

Although people find other uses for it, it's pretty clear what a shovel is made for. The message of the bible is so unclear that you have radically different interpretations from Catholics to Jehovah's Witnesses to Pentecostals. Christians can't even agree if the bible is to be taken literally or figuratively...let alone where to go after that.

1. The objective standard is not there. If you were a Catholic and you had a disagreement with a Baptist, you would, theoretically, turn to the bible to settle the dispute. However, you read bibles with different canons, different interpretations of the parts you have in common, and may not even agree on taking it literally or figuratively. From sect to sect you are not only divided, but you lack any way to unite...you lack an objective standard.

2. Religion isn't scary because of some Godhead passing judgment. If that was the issue then I'd have 10,000 different Gods to choose from...and a 1 in 10,000 chance of choosing the right one. That's a ridiculous roulette game...

Religion is scary because it claims absolute truth while lacking sufficient criteria to claim that truth...compounded with the ability to stir up psychological fervor.



The path of reason takes you through the sciences, mathematics, and philosophy. All of these have an objective standard based in logic. The sciences include a further objective standard in the scientific method based on experimentation. These standards are incredibly effective at what they do (and in the case of logic, it is an objective fact about our brain's interpretation of the world...you could not make sense of the world without logic). Even businesses at least have an objective standard they can go to when they dispute: they settle it through money or at worst, the legal system.

Religion is absent this objective standard. I know you like to see your interpretation of your holy book to be the "objective" truth, but you have to realize that there are 10,000 other gods and probably about as many Christian sects that will not abide by your interpretation.



I don't know how else to say it. I just want a society based on reason and rational governance. I don't think you're stupid or irrational (it does baffle me how otherwise intelligent people buy into the religion "social virus" though), I'm just tired. It's exhausting when religious folks demand and impose their worldview on society when they have almost nothing back it up with (the fact is that religion has extremely poor evidence...nothing even close to compelling...about the existence of their deities...it's that simple). It's exhausting to hear any Fox news "report" knowing how influential and damaging it is to society to hear such filth. It's just exhausting knowing how much influence the irrational, reactionary, uneducated people of the world have. I apologize if I seem to group you into that group of people based on religion.

 

don't group people in any way, people will do that for themselves instead treat every one as a individual with there own thoughts, beliefs and motivations.

you have no idea how insulting what you just said was and how far from the truth it is. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the Bible and if you show me in the Bible where I have be wrong then I will change my view in a snap.

you completely muddled my words. let me paraphrase what I said for you.

"The Bible is correct, some just misuse it out of ignorance or for self-gain."

this is a terrible argument, obviously not all Christians agree on how the Bible is to be interpreted. Just as not all people agree on whether abortion is correct or not, just as not every one agrees on one theory of creation. But that's what makes humanity great. We seek to understand what is in front of us, we won't always agree but we all admit that there is something there. whether it be divine, human, or natural.

1) See once again you gone back to eisegetical interpretation of the Bible. I said the exegetical approach is the only way you can understand anything(not just the Bible). And what is the matter if a catholic and a baptist argue over the Bible. They show that there willing to defend there beliefs and unless they are to thick headed to see there own errors then eventually they'll come to an understanding and both will have learned something.

this like saying that if two scientist debated over a subject, that that subject is inherently wrong as opposed to one of the scientist. There standard would be scientific theory, the Baptist's and Catholic's would be the very the epistles and TaNeKa. You act as if we are incapable of coming to conclusions that don't fit outside of our initial understanding.

2) you mistook my meaning of why people fear religion, not any one in particular or the fact that there is a need to pick a single one. but instead the idea of any deity or deities. The idea of a holy being greater then you who has not only the ability but the right to decide your fate is a fearsome thought. It is why Christians and Jews fear there God.

Religion is no scarier then anyone else claiming truth as if it was to be claimed.

by your notion atheism or agnosticism is just another part of the game.

first lets back off from Christianity and go religion in general as that is where your argument is played against.

Every religion has standards just as different governments or states have different laws. Does the fact that there are other ways life nullify any one specific law or government. Now while many things are universal like theft or murder some seem complicated or false so you go to the one who wrote the laws and you check what they had to say and in the context of what they said. this will legitimately prove or disqualify one or both views on view on the subject. now when confronted with disqualification you can do one of two things accept that your view is wrong and leave, deny that your view is wrong and live against the views of the founders of the law. Which ever you choose is up to you. for the U.S. this would mean going back to the constitution or for Jews the Torah and for Christians the Gospels.

rational governance takes away the the value of the individual. putting instead the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. I dreem of a government which equals the needs of the few and many.

You act as if trouble is the result of religion.and lets face it there is no reason to believe that people need religion to be evil. Trust me if you took away religion the world would be a far more evil place.

 

Ok, third time I've written this, as Firefox has crashed three times now (lots of stability problems for the past couple months of their releases).

Science has its own internal disputes too. String theory is a great example. However, there is a very very key difference, and this is really the point:

Science has a way of settling such disputes. All scientists agree that the method to solve those disputes is valid and reasonable. Religion does not have any sort of objective way to settle disputes. The bible does not settle disputes...it's part of the problem.

And this lack of objective method to resolve disputes is a huge part of the scariness of religion. Instead of having an objective standard to turn to to resolve disputes, people often turn to violence or coercion over religion. American politics is full of just this...people trying to use the coercive power of the government to force their religious ideals and morals on society (and often succeeding).

Groups accuse other groups of taking an eisegetical approach all the time. Jews accuse Christians of doing it when Christians think the Hebrew prophecies are about Jesus. Catholics think everyone else is doing it because, "It can only be understood through the traditions of the church."
The problem is that the term is vague. Again, there is no objective standard to knowing when someone is using one way of interpretation or the other. I mean, how do you know when someone is actually using an eisegetical approach?

Science isn't vague. It uses mathematics, a formalized language of logic, and typically an area of science uses its own terminology that refers to a specific concept (most people would not know what I mean if I told them the negation of two elements, 'A' and 'B', linked with a conjunction is the logical equivalent of the negation of 'A' linked with the negation of 'B' by a disjunction; by De Morgan's law). Although many get frustrated at the "techno-babble," it's there so there is no confusion or vagueness over what is being said. It's just unfortunate it requires training and study to understand it.

Religion just doesn't have this. :/

That's not the point. Science has its own internal disputes, but they agree on the method for resolving those disputes. Disputes linger (like string theory) due to the current technological limitations of experimentation...string theory can't be tested yet.

Christians don't have an agreed, nonvague method of determining whos interpretation is correct. Because of this, they further don't have a method of determing who has the correct morality, or even the correct facts about when they think the universe was born into existence.

I don't know...it seems acceptable for the state to murder someone in many peoples' eyes...

Way to poison the well! Where in the world did you get that rational governance = putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few? Mr. Spock is not the spokesman for rational discourse.

Well, you're right that people don't need religion to be evil. They don't need religion to be good either though. Honestly, most people act "good" because that is what they were told to do, fear of the law, or fear of social ostracism (or some combination of these).

What bugs me, and what I think the world could change, is to adopt the objective method of logic when attempting to settle matters of politics, morality, truth, and other such things that are more appropriately in the realm of philosophy, not religion. Instead, what the world has is a bunch of people hopped up on the psychological hype of religious indignation trying to push an agenda that has no basis in logic, observation or the like.

And it's just not just a political thing. It's a social thing. I just wish religion would stay out of our politics and social lives. But it's pushed on me everywhere I go.

 

why are there disputes in science if there are objective standards?

I don't think you get the point of the exegetical approach as I'm trying to give it to you. It's not for those with preconceived notions. Simply put look at the bible read it. take into the context of the era of it's writing. the style of it's author. whether or no the author is using a literal writing style or philosophical one. Look at info from outside of the bible. Read it in it's original language. Take into consideration points made from those around you checking them against what the book says. Then tell me what it says.

that is objective, those are standards.

I'll give you the shortest example I can give you.

βαπτίζω is a Greek word. it is translated into English as Baptizo, which is where we get the word for baptism, or baptize. is in it's original context a naval phrase for sinking a ship. It's modern equivalent for english would be to scuttle. It is the word we use for the our christian Baptism. Which is held differently by many people.

some Christians say sprinkling others say immersion, along with a lists of other ways to baptize. Also there is the form of infant baptism. The roman catholic sprinkle baptism will be our example today.

the christian baptism come directly from the Jewish Mikveh which is a ritual cleansing. During the Mikveh you were completely submerged underwater in a ritual pool.

there is never mention of sprinkling or pouring baptism in the NT. The word for sprinkle in Greek is ραντίζω or rantizo. these words are not found in the NT. So tell me is there any reason to believe that rantizo is equal to baptizo.

why is this even a debate. because of tradition instead of biblical teachings. A similar can can be made for infant baptism.

This is how you settle arguments and differences over biblical teachings. How is that not objective?

 

That is exciting! Living with that information is both the challenge and the adventure...and in this life one can never exhaust the meaning of such a reality.

 

are you a peace maker?

 

Keeping in mind that the government calls the military "peace makers," I imagine Quinlan can claim "yes" to this question no matter what.

 

it was a play pf a bible passage.

"blessed are the peace makers for they will be called sons of God"