An Open Spirituality / Religion / Theology Forum
It sounds counter intuitive, but while it may be true that believers inherit the kingdom of heaven, maybe only the exceptionally intelligent will understand it beforehand.
i like that.
@Brentos I never said he never lived I know we know that much, at least
seriously, Jesus is a manmade creation, the bare bones of what we know about Jesus with any kind of supportable evidence is so slender, it is astounding all that has been attributed to him
i take it you’re referring to his miracles then, and not his being.
yes, his miracles and most else that is written and said about him
as for Esther andJerry (and other examples) my point is how powerful and easy is the process of fabrication and convincing people of just about anything
Televangelism is the same way: Send us $50 and get a miracle, send us $110 and get 3 $40 savings on miracles but it’s only for today, so call now!!
Doctor Lemonglow, will you give me a dollar if I ring my magic bell and protect you from being killed by a demonic meteor this year? No? Is that because you understand that demonic meteors are not an idea worth taking seriously and certainly aren’t worth a buck?
We are not talking in this thread about a singular god that some people like to name God, we are talking about all the millions of different supernatural things and creatures, gods, and what not, that people have ever dreamed up in the past and the uncountable additional one that they might dream up in the future. There is no reason to assume that any of these things or gods exists, and there are good reasons to conclude that they don’t.
riss, i have read the bible. genesis clearly states that the serpent tempted eve who gave the fruit to adam.
genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” <—subjugation of women
it’s a founding tenet of the church. then there’s st paul
1 corinthians 11:3: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
6: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7: For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8: (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9: Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) <— subjugation of women.
1 corinthians 14:34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. <— subjugation of women
The serpent out witted Eve, who unknowingly betrayed Adam who unknowingly betrayed God.
However it is a common Christian belief that the serpent was in fact Satan, though there is no mention of this whatsoever in the Pentateuch. It does say that the serpent is the most cunning of all beasts that God created. This begs the questions of:
Did God purposefully create the beast to be the most cunning?
or
Did the serpent eat from the Tree of Knowledge and then gain his guile, for he speaks in human tongue for Eve to understand?
@Ruby
Yes, Men was made to rule over all beasts on earth, Women was made from Man, after the events in Eden, Man was then said to rule over women as well, and she would cherish her male lover, but be subordinate to him also, and bear his children. If only Eve had seen Snow White, she’d know not to eat the apple. Never eat the apple!
Yes, the religions founded by Abraham are misogynistic and patriarchal, but only in orthodoxy. Most of these have progressed passed this, however those fundamentalists still remain scattered.
ahh so they just follow the parts that suit them now. i see
and u just admitted it was eve’s fault. lol
what if we admit this is a made up story invented by men to keep women under control. i think it was st augustine who wrote: “Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.” <— this. men fear women as they are the cause of involuntary sin of erection
Of considerable concern for Augustine was the fact that he and all men could exercise no control over their own penises. Erections might come and go without the man having much to do with it. A heterosexual male, however, was more prone to get an unwilled erection when in the presence of women. Women naturally and unwittingly provoked this physical reaction in the male. The man, in effect, loses full control over himself, and whatever his mental and spiritual aspirations may be, in the presence of sexually attractive females he is reduced to baser thoughts and physical urges.
Under these circumstances, his power is effectively usurped by the woman. Herein resides the fundamental threat posed by women to all heterosexual men. Unable to control their own bodies (a result of Adam’s disobedience), men seek instead to control the bodies of women.
fascinating concept. I for one don’t become erect every time a physically attractive woman walks by, and for the most part can control my boners (i said it), so this isn’t really an issue for me, but i love the parallels made, even though this prof. is kind of “reaching” a bit, in my opinion.
all of these documents were written far before the women’s lib movement, and most Western establishments have conformed and progressed with the times. However, it is pathetic that the subjugation of women is still occurring various forms in the Western world, and even more horrifically so in the Middle East.
brentos, if u were celibate is it possible that beautiful women might cause u to have involuntary erections??
let’s also admit that the radical christian right is trying to turn back the clocks on women’s lib first and foremost
According to the text, it was Eve’s fault, but who’s to say that the serpent couldn’t’ve outwitted Adam had he been there first? Eve just “happened” to be there.
There are many parables and stories in the bible/torah/qur’an that debase women, but that’s not all that’s in them.
maybe i missed something, was there an argument about the subjugation of women in holy texts?
riss said he had never heard of women being blamed for original sin. but i’m sorry brentos, i am not meaning to take this out on u. this is just one of many reasons why i left the church and it still frustrates me that i personally know women that struggle with their feelings because they’re sure that it’s sinful for them not to be subject to their husbands. motivation: fear
it’s an outmoded institution and it will die, finally. it can’t be soon enough for women in poor 3rd world countries who are afraid to use birth control and so are forced to give birth to 14 kids
brentos, if u were celibate is it possible that beautiful women might cause u to have involuntary erections??
let’s also admit that the radical christian right is trying to turn back the clocks on women’s lib first and foremost
Who says i’m not celibate now (i’m not)? It’s a possibility i suppose, but then again erections stem from physical touch, or naughty thoughts. I’m sure a beautiful girl could walk by without me thinking naughty thoughts about her, thus keeping my penis flaccid and holy. There was a long time belief that morningwood and nocturnal emissions were seen as an omen, i believe it was known as the Curse of Lilith or something?
Oh yes, yes they are. I’ve seen the “GOP hate Women video” and it’s true, they do. But that’s the ‘radical Christian right’ which make up a small % of most Christians, most of which are running for public office, yippee!!!!
Ah, I see. well in that case, yes misogyny is sprinkled throughout the Holy Bible and women must obey the commands of men. that is thoroughly stated many, many times.
I don’t see you as taking anything out on me, i guess i skipped over a bit of back-and-forth before jumping in :P
s’ok we’re still buddies xD
those guys running for public office are appealing to somebody or they wouldn’t get far
i left the church because i couldn’t be expected to believe in any of that. I tried to believe, but i just can’t. So i moved on to other things like studying Religion, and mubi…
yeah it still fascinates me in many ways. witness how i can’t stay away from this thread lol
and i still didn’t get where u guys explained why it’s ok for god to order genocide. and u say this is the same god we have today. what if he orders that again? don’t u know george w bush that he was following god’s orders?
Downbylaw, since this topic is titled “open theology forum,” I’m going to take a leap of faith and say that I can talk about whatever I choose.
But apart from that, surely my post is relevant to what Jerry brought up.
As for “good reasons to conclude that they don’t exist,” as I mentioned in my post, those reasons are much like any reason, in say, 1774, NOT to believe in the “strong force” that binds protons and neutrons. Or anti-matter.
In other words, they are old technology and represent a somewhat outmoded consciousness.
Surely we are way past an emphasis on the tangible by now.
Doctor Lemonglow, you are not saying that you believe everything imaginable (and unimaginable) exists because somebody might find a reason for it someday, are you?
Myself, I believe thing don’t exist when we don’t have any evidence for them and our best understanding of the universe is against them. We don’t have evidence of any supernatural creatures doing anything in the world while we do have lots of evidence of people inventing fanciful ideas and believing weird stuff.
When one or more of these supernatural entities starts dropping in on a regular basis and gives us a little chat that includes useful information like, say, how to create an HIV vaccine or some pointers on reconciling relativity with quantum theory, then I’ll have some reasons to reconsider my views. But as long as they remain no-shows, I’ll stick with my considered conclusion that they are figments of the imagination that clever people have dreamed up.
it’s an outmoded institution and it will die, finally. it can’t be soon enough for women in poor 3rd world countries who are afraid to use birth control and so are forced to give birth to 14 kids
Ruby, I think religion needs to be actively pushed out the door. One way to do some of that pushing is to keep trying to show people that they don’t need religion for the things they think they need it for. One big hurdle is the idea that “you cannot be good without god”. So it worth showing people that, yes, in fact you can.
Some very thoughtful and insightful contributions on this thread. I would like to propose a question: I happen to be quite intrigued by aliens and UFOs and the like and I am quite certain not only that they exist but that the revelation of their existence to the wider world is imminent. Perhaps not next month but in the coming years. The question that I would like to pose is how would the no-doubt-about-it existence of non-earthly entities affect the world’s religions? Would it cause people to lose their respective faiths or merely strengthen them? Apart from any perceived physical threat, would the presence of aliens engender a widespread danger to the dominant paradigm, which is that we earthlings are the summa of creation (most particularly the idea that we are created in God’s image)? Talk amongst yourselves.
i think science has explained the causes of weather phenomena and the movement of planets as well as many diseases and conditions that were thought to be scourges from god or demon possession
Just a thought. Science has explained how these things work. But it doesn’t really answer, or even attempt to answer the reason why they occur. Why and how are different things. “How” is the mechanisms for something occuring, the cause and effect. “Why” is the purpose the creator had behind them.
i can’t do this anymore, sorry
^ or test us?
but why is there a test brad. i can’t do this anymore cuz i know that in thousands of yrs of scholarship an answer for every question has been worked out to make the story foolproof. that doesn’t mean it isn’t all bs
there’s always some rationalization for misogyny and genocide
i should know better
i’ll still pray for an end to guilt and fear.
thank god i’m an atheist – luis buñuel
Ruby, you’ve “had it” with this thread quite a few times by now, but you keep coming back. ;p (I hope you stay. You’re a good rep for the Atheist team.)
The testing angle assumes the existence of a just God. It would be simple to create fully just beings (which the Bible says he did and called them angels), but freewill is what separates us from the angels and closer to being in God’s image. Freewill would be meaningless unless the option on evil were on the table.
Too many things have already been said in this thread, but I’d like to suggest something in regards to how the Bible (and other religious texts for that matter) are interpreted. In short, Biblical interpretation is not a static discipline. And anyone who tries to interpret it with any amount of rigor will discover that it is extremely complex. Even now that are so many different sects and variations on Christianity that I think we should be careful when we ascribe praise or woe to any given interpretation, and then blame the entire religion for said interpretation.
Doctor Lemonglow
Risselada: My favorite films dealing with spiritual and religious matters are PASSAGE TO INDIA (1985, David Lean), BREAKING THE WAVES (1996, Lars von Trier), and I also like THE APOSTLE and MAN FACING SOUTHEAST.
My own spiritual views don’t significantly inform my experience of cinema unless the picture I’m watching has some spiritual component, such as the above.
But I will repeat some of what I said about this topic elsewhere:
Dogmatism and zealotry may emerge in any ideology, and a particular set of beliefs don¹t require supernatural or spiritual elements in order to function as a religion.
This is why atheists crack me up, well, at least the most active and outspoken ones.
The appeal to science is even funnier: it seems odd to accept on faith, for example,
some chalkboard equation that attempts to describe, for example:
a) dark energy
b) anti-matter
c) how the movement of some sub-atomic particles exhibits no past or future
while at the same time vehemently declaring that there is no God, and then doubling down by declaring that the mere suspicion of such a thing is absolutely ridiculous.
It¹s a double standard on a good day.
The vociferousness with which so many atheists stand by this or similar positions
at least hints that they know it is a double standard.
In other words, an omniscient intelligence acting as a Creator is no more bizarre than
magnetism or black holes.
Primitive man, and later superstitious and early religious man, suspected and/or believed
that unseen forces were at work in the universe.
Newton, then Einstein and similar astonishing minds demonstrated that those
early folks were correct.
Just not in quite the way or form those folks imagined.
If you read about particle physics and Feynman diagrams and even more
radical theories concerning the nature of things, you eventually get to a point beyond your
grasp.
Not many people are blessed with an understanding of the deepest concepts,
and most of us struggle to comprehend—and certainly to articulate—physics.
Before Einstein, there were questions that we didn¹t even know to ask, let
alone formulate an answer to.
So refuting the existence of God by appealing to science and reason today
sounds like 18th-century thinking applied to modern physics.
Long story short, it seems possible that anyone straight-up denying the
existence of God just isn¹t smart enough (yet) to even begin tackling the question.
It requires an exceptional mind to make the leap of faith,
perhaps because, at some point, all scientific advances began with leaps of
faith (see: Einstein).
It sounds counter intuitive, but while it may be true that believers inherit
the kingdom of heaven, maybe only the exceptionally intelligent will understand it beforehand.