Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Orange Wizard]

I'd be hesitant to say that everything after Point X is accurate. The more recent events seem to be more accurately recorded, and the less recent ones seem less accurate.
The biggest break is obviously oral vs. written history. Genesis is entirely oral tradition as far as I know, so I would expect it to be significantly less accurate than, say, Kings, Chronicles, or Samuel, which are books of written history and seem to be at least roughly in line with other sources from around that time.
During the conquest of Canaan, there are a lot of incidents where God intervenes quite directly (Jericho, stopping the sun, and various other battles). I'm loathe to say these didn't happen, but I must admit it's a fair assumption to say they were embellished somewhat.
The exiles and late OT seems to be in about the same category as the kingdom period history books - written, and reasonably on point, although unfortunately a fair number of details seem to have been changed.

The New Testament is a little different. We have literally thousands of original copies, but these weren't written down until a few decades after the event. There are minor inconsistencies here and there (the most egregious being in the nativity stories) which IMO are best explained by fallible human memory.

...

In short, I believe the Bible is a spiritual document, and any historicity is mostly unnecessary. Whether or not that's the correct position I've no idea, but I think it's the safest.

[Rolan7]

Only Revelations is accurate

But well...  I'm of the opinion that Jesus wasn't a single person, but was formed from a variety of characters (like King Arthur).  I could be wrong, but the evidence seems to point in that direction.  So that's most of the New Testament out.

As for the Old Testament, it says that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, for which there's a significant lack of evidence.  It also constantly describes impossibly large armies for the time, and impossibly long lifespans.  If it's true, it's because a powerful entity messed with reality quite a bit.  So if I were a Christian I maybe could believe it.

The Old Testament did mention a group called the Hittites who turned out to be real, so it's not completely made up...  And I think the post-Christ epistles/letters are probably accurate, though I haven't studied them closely.

In short, as a non-Christian, I naturally think it's mostly inaccurate and absolutely unreliable.  It was written and edited (selection of canon) by people with political agendas and firmly held beliefs.  If I were a Christian, I'd probably still doubt a lot of the text for that reason.  I'd consider it an inaccurate legend about real events, and seek a personal relationship with God to get the true story.

[Arcvasti]

It also constantly describes impossibly large armies for the time, and impossibly long lifespans.  If it's true, it's because a powerful entity messed with reality quite a bit.  So if I were a Christian I maybe could believe it.

According to Religion class at the Catholic school I attend, most numbers in the Bible are symbolic[This is also the only thing that I've legitimately learned, since Religion class consists of learning the same "concepts" over and over again until you escapegraduate. Like, in Revelations, it says that only the 144 000 who believe in God will be saved. But, because symbolism, it translates to "Only the many who are more perfect then perfection who believe in God will be saved". Because 12 symbolizes perfections, 12 squared[144] is even more perfect and thousand symbolizes "lots". The other example I remember was the ages of Adams' descendents symbolizing how faithful they were to God. IIRC, the one's whose age at fathering first son AND their age when they died were both divisible by seven and ten were faithful to God and the rest had varying degrees of faithfulness.

[Fenrir]

I'm not saying it's true based on that. I'm saying that we shouldn't place religion into the 'Evil Things' category just because the cognitive processes that it leads to and cause it seem like status games.

I think this kind of depends on what somebody’s values are. If you think that believing a thing because it feels good instead of believing it because it’s true is “evil”, then it might make sense to put religion in the “evil things” category. I’m not sure where I stand on this.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm saying it's not even about feeling good, Fenrir. It actually improves health. That said, the ideal would be belief systems that are both true and satisfy that underlying human desire for spirituality, if not by being spiritual then by still nonetheless fostering that sense of community via rituals and social groups. But it's difficult to self-adjust your beliefs away from what you believe is true without evidence to the contrary (and making an effort, but that was kinda of assumed with the 'self-adjusting' bit). Most people believe that it's true; that's why it's a belief.

[Fenrir]

Yeah, okay, so I didn’t respond to what you said. I think my reply can be adapted to what you did say, but that seems like a less defensible position to hold. Believing things for health benefits? I personally wouldn’t do that (depending on the benefits, probably), but even loosely using the term “evil” to describe it seems extreme.

[Rolan7]

If someone holds truth as an important ideal, it's evil.
Though most people probably prefer to balance it with other ideals, like minimizing unwanted suffering and maximizing satisfaction.  As an extreme example, very few people would feel obligated to share a Mythos secret which doomed all who heard it to an alien hell dimension.

In general though, I consider it evil for an untruth to be allowed to spread.  It's dishonest, even if people are happier being wrong.  Pragmatically it can set back scientific and cultural development, which in turn hold back productivity and the pursuit of happiness.  In the long run, following the truth seems like the best strategy for human happiness.

I do tell white lies of course...  But I suck at it so much that it hardly counts, just transparent social politeness.

[Orange Wizard]

Many religions today aren't necessarily untrue, though. They're unfalsifiable, which while not ideal still isn't the same thing as outright lying.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You don't have to lie to be untrue, and you don't have to know for sure you're lying to be lying. The most dangerous types are those who have the knowledge to understand they're probably wrong, but then suppress that recognition.

[Fenrir]

Many religions today aren't necessarily untrue, though. They're unfalsifiable, which while not ideal still isn't the same thing as outright lying.

Even if I agreed with the premise that religions aren’t necessarily untrue, just unfalsifiable, they’d still be shifting probability mass without adequate evidence, which, if it’s done knowingly, is exactly what lying is.

[Rolan7]

Many religions today aren't necessarily untrue, though. They're unfalsifiable, which while not ideal still isn't the same thing as outright lying.

Oh definitely.  What I was talking about was intentionally spreading or allowing an untruth to spread.  So, not the vast majority of religious people.

Con-men who use religion for profit are guilty, obviously.  But also, you hear stories about church officials who don't actually believe what they preach, but think religion is good for people anyway.  In my opinion such people would be making a mistake, in the long run, despite their intentions.  Their intentions determine whether it's evil or just wrong.  (Of course, maybe *I'm* wrong and a lie really is the best course).

[Adragis]

Peter Popoff is a shining example of a religious conman. Well, less shining and more filthy.

[Graknorke]

Peter Popoff is a shining example of a religious conman. Well, less shining and more filthy.

I'm surprised people give Popoff money. He's been shown to be a fraud over and over and still somehow makes money.

[Frumple]

Eh, there's dozens of examples of such. Religious organizations are one of the biggest fraud/embezzlement/etc. markets in the world. There's terribly few environments better for a con to thrive in, heh.

[Adragis]

He's quite probably an indirect murderer, too.
I'd say his money is because he targets elderly or desperate people, myself.