Do you believe any of the stories that Religions teach?

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Annee
Sorry IAMIAM.

All I can say is: I don't agree with you. You seem to be looking for something wrong - - when there isn't anything wrong.

I can think for myself. I really don't need someone else defining the "fine points".

I wasn't defining the "Fine Points" for you my friend. I was simply pointing out that the 10 commandments you posted do not have fine points. Thus, they are not commandments at all.

I still don't agree with you.

I think they say all they need to say for a thinking man - - - not a follower.

You believe or you don't believe. People of faith for the most part were not born to their beliefs they
have through earnest study of there various religious texts developed thier faith.

Originally posted by dkwlttrman
You believe or you don't believe. People of faith for the most part were not born to there beliefs they
Have through earnest study of there various religious texts.

I disagree with that completely.

As I say - - I was assimilated into Christianity. It was not my choice to believe a God (mystical being) created all there is.

Are you telling me you were born somewhere in the wilds - - - and were never exposed to this mystical being - God - that is our Creator?

Originally posted by bogomil

a/ The bible contains something for every taste, mindset and inclination. From the schizoid OT Jahveh and his obsessive ned for being worshipped, his bloodthirst and his moods to the mostly compassionate NT teachings (deformed and 'conditional' as they are after passing centuries of religious tinkering with social engineering).

If there is a contemporary pattern in this, my own guess would be, that the ideological fascists of the OT school are loosing ground, compared to the more socially responsible 'do-gooders'. Fire-and-brimstone isn't what it used to be from a popularity perspective.

What is your point? You seem intent on missing the functionality of the Bible in favor of your seeming distaste for it. God is not obsessive about being worshiped for no functional reason. Nor is he bloodthirsty indiscriminately.

He is obsessive about being the only God because religious arguments divide a group, and a divided group more easily falls to its enemies. Part of the success of these memes lies in its faithful replication. Hence, a strong requirement to obey. Bloodthirsty to eliminate the competition. Even in the way eliminating the competition is ordered you see natural selection at work. You act as if these things do not have value because you dont like them, and honestly, "I dont like it" is not an argument.

Christianity? Say what you will, but the truth is, not even Christians follow the teachings of Christ. He is just feel good enough to get Christians to love one another, to some degree, and promote heightened altruism and cooperation in the group, but very few Christians accept and practice the love thy enemy clause. What helped Christianity go viral was Paul, who changed the message of Jesus from one of sacrifice to one of "he did it all for you," and made it more appealing, and who also opened it wide up by removing any genetic restrictions from the group.

Originally posted by bogomil
b/ Mankind is technically speaking very vulnerable. We don't even have tails or treeclimbing feet any more, as an escape option. Our strength lies in the ability to co-operate; and for good or bad we are presently at the 'top' of the known food-pyramid (there may be predators 'higher' than us, which are forgotten in western tradition).

One lone Ayn Rand Captain America type isn't sitting in his cave and in one lifetime going from the wheel to computers. The culturally, collectively inherited knowledge did the trick.

Of course. I dont see what you are trying to convince me of here. I am obviously aware we are social animals, that crucial to my argument, its self evident that physically we arent that imposing, and who said anything at all about someone going it alone? What on Earth are you on about?

I am not arguing, no where did I say, that it was all individuals pitted against one another. I made it VERY clear that competition is occurring at the individual AND group levels. So you have jockeying for position within the group, but you have fiercer competition between groups.

Originally posted by bogomil
c/ Bees, a very, very old collective life-form, are mainly pacifists, directing their aggression potential towards invaders, on an initially defensive basis. (Though they can very seldomly act invasively, when environmentally factors theraten the hive. Then the invaded and the invaders merge without much ado). Until the recent increase of short-wave technology (which is presumed to be destructive for bees), they did well.

Again, how are you relating this to my argument at all? Yes, they are socially cohesive. But they do still compete against other species and others of their own species. You are not comparing apples to apples by trying to compare bees directly with humans. We do not breed the way they do. They have come up with a reproductive strategy to reduce competition within the group that we are not employing, unless you know something I dont.

Originally posted by bogomil
d/ For some obscure reason, the US social darwinism seems to be everything's measure-tape. The, in historical terms, young genuinely liberal nations around the world are forgotten, while they actually thrive in many respects. And they are far from toothless, if anyone should believe that (ofocurse no-one can defend him/herself against some extremist nut nuking the whole planet).

Sounds good. Except if you are arguing that "they are far from toothless" you are not really arguing against me either. They are competing with other groups. Your first statement is a throw away, some half assed idea of social darwinism, which tells me you are arguing in your own head, rather than looking at what I am saying. The second statement says nothing except that there are young liberal nations thriving. Ok. And? Where you going with that? And lastly that they are in competition with others, um, yeah, and wtf about nuking the world? Whats up? How does that relate?

Originally posted by bogomil
e/ At the really complex level, where we're talking zero-point physics, big bang, the anthropic theory, micro/macro-cosmos, complexity/chaos-theory and the basically subject/object construction of the visible universe, it's not some fringe-speculation to see different cosmic principles functioning parallel to each other.

Well thats not what I am discussing. I am discussing why relgions are so successful, why certain ones out perform others, and why it is pointless to try to "wish" them away. If you want to modify them to make them less harmful, you have to understand why they succeed. You can alter them, but only within the natural rules of the game called "natural selection."

Originally posted by bogomil
What we would call symbiosis and predation. Predation only seems to be the 'winner'. but that's a long story.

Interesting, but not really related directly, and just a toss off sentence, no argument. If you are using predation and symbiosis to substitute for terms that really would apply here, "cooperators and cheaters" for instance, then you would still need to make an argument. Cheaters really can win, not only "seem" to win. They can overrun cooperators very readily, if the cooperators are not seeking them out and eliminating them from within the group ruthlessly.

You have to be discriminatory in order for altruism and cooperation to succeed.

Originally posted by bogomil
Black/white framed situations restrict answers to a few options. How the heck can any real knowledge emerge from that?

Im not making a "black and white" argument. Its actually well considered, supportable, and not a series of disjointed statements that sound ok taken line by line, but when looked at as a cohesive whole have nothing to do with what you are responding to.

I can show you why the big three religions work. Why they are powerful, why they beat out other religions, why they stormed Europe, why the stories matter, the benefit they provide the people who practice them. There is a real logic and true benefit to the people who practice those religions, they arent just some random collection of superstitions. Yes, the rules of natural selection were wrapped up in a narrative specific to an ethic group, to make it more appealing to them, and "Nature" became "God." Its not accidental. In the sense that these religions provided some selective benefit, the people who practiced them were the "chosen of God."


If you can argue that there is no selective value in those three teachings, and it is pure coincidence that they are so enormously dominant, do so.

Originally posted by Annee
I still don't agree with you.

I think they say all they need to say for a thinking man - - - not a follower.

Uh Annee my friend, I hate to break it to you but...

You are a FOLLOWER if you adopt someone elses words as your own!



You just chose someone else to follow.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Stop-loss!


I'd have to say I do not believe any of the stories, at least not literally. I do believe in the value some of them hold yes. However I feel the great telephone game is being played through the centuries. I really would not doubt that psychedelics had some influence in some of the bible stories. I know it may not be easy to have a bush burn and talk to you, but it is possible. The virgin Mary? Ok, how about I sell you this cheese bread with the likeness of Jesus on it for a mere 25K

Originally posted by dl2one
I know it may not be easy to have a bush burn and talk to you, but it is possible. The virgin Mary? Ok, how about I sell you this cheese bread with the likeness of Jesus on it for a mere 25K

Yeah - - well I believe there was some "off planet" beings and abductions going on.

I certainly don't support any of the mystical stories - - - as being a powerful supernatural omnipotent being of Creation.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
You are a FOLLOWER if you adopt someone elses words as your own!

You just chose someone else to follow.

No and No.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IAMIAM
You are a FOLLOWER if you adopt someone elses words as your own!

You just chose someone else to follow.

No and No.

Ok, if you say so.

Once again, "reason" prevails!

Take care my friend.

Originally posted by loagun
the ones that can be traced back to/or mirror ancient Egyptian account yes. such as the flood, Horus, etc. that's the real history.

Sorry but I have to disagree with your statement. The Egyptian civilization was the most advanced in the world in the times of the Old Testament, technologically, theologically and astronomically. BUT, they had to get their knowledge and teachings from somewhere/one else because as archeological digs have found, there is no evidence to show how the Egytians evolved from being shepherds using crude tools to using advanced mathematics and astrological alignment in designing and building immence monuments like the pyramids ( if it really was the Egyptians! ). The Greek phylosopher Matheno stated that the Egyptian astronomical records went back over 32,000 years! But as history tells us Egypt has'nt been around for that length of time so where did this knowledge come from let alone the technology to lift stones weighing over 100 tons into place so perfectly that cement was'nt needed. We can't do that today!! The Egyptian stories also mirror the earlier Sumerian/Babylonian accounts - e.g The Epic of Gilgamesh. I have been trying to work out 'who' brought the knowledge/civilization to the Egyptians for a long time. I am still looking but many texts from all over the world talk of enlightened beings bringing many different teachings from healing to agriculture and from astrology to theology after a great catastrophy ( the flood?? ). Once I find out who these people are I think I will be much closer to the answer.

reply to post by Annee


Not so. It isnt politics.

Its not that man presents random idea, and people believe it and follow it.

Its that man sees a solution to a problem his people are having, man presents solution to people as message from God, people see the value in it and adopt it. Being able to say "God decreed this" just makes it easier to get people to obey without requiring that they understand the logic behind it.

You are pretending that these religions do not offer value to their practitioners and they do. Its not just a bunch of stupid people following some idiot who made stuff up randomly. The big three religions offer powerful value in terms of "group cohesiveness" and "societal stability" and they are ruthlessly aggressive to competing groups.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IAMIAM
You are a FOLLOWER if you adopt someone elses words as your own!

You just chose someone else to follow.

No and No.

Ok, if you say so.

Will you stop calling me Friend - - it is really annoying. I do not know you.

And Yes - - I say so.

Originally posted by Annee
Will you stop calling me Friend - - it is really annoying. I do not know you.

And Yes - - I say so.

You are correct, I do not know you either.

Your doctrine seems to have filled your heart with an abundance of love and joy. Keep it, it will serve you well in the times ahead.

I'm coming more and more to a fact that all these stories were a 'way of fun' for people back in the day. But an idea slipped into one's mind one day to put them on paper and actually write them out. There's probably some truth to them but you've gotta peel back the years of banana phone (the game where one whispers into another's ear and it goes around in a circle between all until the last one says the message, something completely different then what was spoken.

Greeks had their 'stories' of Gods and fabulous tales of wonder. Egyptians had them, Mayans, Russians, Turks.. Africans probably have them but noone listens because they're the 'beating horse' of Earth. There's a grain of truth to each of the stories, a belief the person telling has, but they're far gone from them once Humans perverted them.

No one soul has a say over another. God is not one entity nor 13 seperate entities, but all that is.

reply to post by OneLife


Human culture is "this is how we live" or "our complied strategies for how to succeed on Earth." Our religious stories are no different. They are "how to succeed at life" for specific people in specific regions, and if they are really good strategies, they may get spread all over the place.

Itis a shame that they got written down, because in the past, wise people were constantly readjusting the stories and lore to keep it relevant. Since writing religious traditions have not really had the opportunity to evolve with us, and this has caused some trouble, some conflict.

For one, it makes some people think "God" no longer speaks to people, and this is not true. God is still communicating with us, all the time.

Secondly, it makes it harder for us to eliminate laws that were once valuable, which are no longer useful. And, it makes it hard to add in new laws that God has conveyed to us that we desperately need. Through science we still do gain access to some of the message of God, but it is unfortunately knowledge without wisdom, and to live well Gods instructions you need both.

In 1990, Harvard researchers working in the ancient city of Ashkelon, north of the Gaza Strip, unearthed a small silver-plated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the Book of Exodus. In 1986, archaeologists found the earliest known text of the Bible, dated to about 600 B.C. It suggests that at least part of the Old Testament was written soon after some of the events it describes. Also in 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal that had belonged to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah in 587 B.C. Read more: www.time.com...

In what may be the most important of these discoveries, a team of archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, in 1993. Words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the "House of David" and the "King of Israel." It is the first time the Jewish monarch's name has been found outside the Bible, and appears to prove he was more than mere legend. Read more: www.time.com...

www.time.com...

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Thanks for your answer, and I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly to you the first time. Maybe this effort will be just as bad.

You wrote later:

["You are pretending that these religions do not offer value to their practitioners and they do. Its not just a bunch of stupid people following some idiot who made stuff up randomly. The big three religions offer powerful value in terms of "group cohesiveness" and "societal stability" and they are ruthlessly aggressive to competing groups."]

Which I see as what I related to intially, and what I believe, I understood initially.

In the quote:

[" In "survival of the fittest terms,"]

religions and other ideologies are social structures, which in short-term perspectives of a predatory environment have great importance.

I hope, you can follow this little detour, which mainly stays at the human level (my former examples were just perspectives on/from other levels):

Practically all methods of information/knowledge gathering/processing are potentially endlessly regressive. In the 'practically all' category, there will always be the question of "but what's the reference-point for this?"

Eventually such categories establish a chosen basis, and through use of various 'arguments' they try to validate their own positions. Faith, logic, science etc. all present their own methodology as THE methodology and their answers as THE answers; at least in the case of the true believers. The initial basis of science was empiricism, of logic axiomatic deductive reasoning and of (authentic) faith alleged individual experiences of anomalities or the trans-mundane.

As I see it, the reference to 'survival of the fittest' is such a chosen basis, which (inside what's observable) can be regressed one step, the new step still being legitimate and still being relevant in the full circle of 'survival' as a primitive, but imperative, element. There is a functional additional/alternative option, symbiosis.

The obvious problem with symbiosis is, that it's a long-term process and that you can't put all your money on it from the start. In short-term frontal competition with predation it has few chances of surviving, so it's an uneasy balance for a very, very long time.

After this circumstantial approach, I can relate to topic with the opinion, that religious stories are low-grade 'arguments', mainly for propaganda purposes and with the aim of keeping up short-term 'predatory' power. They are self-appointed non-regressive.

(And when met with opposition such stories are endlessly embellished, which explains the theist preference for excessive rhetorics).

Some semi-'religious', mainly asian, systems have carried the regression of 'reference-points' far beyond what Abrahamic religions have done, and can actually work parallel and in peace together with such as utilitarian philosophy and pioneer science.

I consider this the best survival option we have at the present, also from an abstract perspective.

PS Just for the record: I'm not a true believer of any asian organised world-view. Though I do consider many of their thoughts very worthwhile.

reply to post by BeenieWeenie


Yes, it is 'WRITTEN', so it must be true.

In two thousand years archeologists may find SF and fantasy comics and some of those plastic (low degradable) items SF and fantasy enthusiasts buy at conventions.

This making it 'likely' that superman existed, with all his sex-less boyscout philosophy; and not forgetting all the 'bad' guy (devils etc).

reply to post by Stop-loss!

You ask to keep it Civil, but I could not help but notice the hostile tone of the OP.

In the Bible are all kinds of literary forms, but over the last several decades alone, archeological findings have tended to support the general historical authenticity of the places and events of the Bible.

Even extraterestrial technologies and intelligences, or agents of a higher will cannot be entirely ruled out.

I do think that the opening books, purportedly written by Moses, although they may have been loosedly based on still more ancient history, are largely of an allegorical nature.

What's more disturbing to me, in all honesty, is the degree of contempt towards the whole thing and the flat out refusal to give it any consideration from any perspective, since it represents ancient wisdom, particularly when we read between the lines between the lines. To throw the whole thing away based on ignorant and nieve assumptions, with a strong dose of anger and meanspiritedness, that imho, is the most heartwrenching thing, in so far as the ancient history is there at least in part to serve as a reminder of our true nature, our origin and our destiny as the apex and crown of God's creation.

reply to post by IAMIAM

Yes, as far as I can tell, the only real problem with all of this in the modern era, is the degree of meanspiritedness and downright anger and hatred shown by some, when what we're talking about is a book that in part actually grants us a peek into ancient history, and the time before time, even though it's couched in the various cultural frames of the day, and makes use of all manner of literary forms.

The problem isn't just with the fundamentalist literalists, but with the atheists who assume it's written as a purely historical account. Heck most probably haven't even studied it. It's absurd. The very premise of the OP is absurd, and basically says "I hate the Bible and Bible believers who must be idiots, because if any part is untrue, as a factual, literal, historical account, then the whole thing's bunk you fools"..

That, imho, is both ignorant and foolish, especially in light of the ACTUAL book in question, and it's varying frames and contextual meaning and significance.

The ultra conservative fundamentalist literalists are just the flip side of that same coin really when you come to think of it.