Looking reasonably at religion

[Ecmandu]

The first statement we can falsify in the Bible is that humans have dominion over all the creatures/animals.

We have seen that this is not a fact.

Then there's the flood story.

Either the animals eat each other, or they starve to death, or nobody needs to eat anymore to survive...

Then there's Jesus ...

Who says not to cast pearls to the swine, speaking in Jewish terms that pigs are a slander, when we actually know they are clean, intelligent and social animals...

So he's speaking in terms of Judaism for something we know is false.

Additionally, the same angels used in the Bible are used in the Koran ... so we basically have a lineage of things we can and have easily proven to be false.

What we do know is that we place psychological energy into ideas and that existence reveals tools to us.

We all want wonderful lives, loving and passionate, we all have our fantasies, and we all realize that we are individuals...

The trick is to manifest our fantasies in a respectful way... which leaves to principle of no harm at the forefront -- we're all like this great think tank, and we should rejoice in it!

[Bob]

The first statement we can falsify in the Bible is that humans have dominion over all the creatures/animals.

We have seen that this is not a fact.

Then there's the flood story.

Either the animals eat each other, or they starve to death, or nobody needs to eat anymore to survive...

Then there's Jesus ...

Who says not to cast pearls to the swine, speaking in Jewish terms that pigs are a slander, when we actually know they are clean, intelligent and social animals...

So he's speaking in terms of Judaism for something we know is false.

Additionally, the same angels used in the Bible are used in the Koran ... so we basically have a lineage of things we can and have easily proven to be false.

What we do know is that we place psychological energy into ideas and that existence reveals tools to us.

We all want wonderful lives, loving and passionate, we all have our fantasies, and we all realize that we are individuals...

The trick is to manifest our fantasies in a respectful way... which leaves to principle of no harm at the forefront -- we're all like this great think tank, and we should rejoice in it!

To look “reasonably” at religion, we have to have an idea of how those ancients thought, which seems to be a long way off from the way we think. We have this narcissistic bias that we are cleverer than those people so long ago, but if you don’t know what they were doing, then you probably end up on the wrong path.

I think that this subject has been dealt with by quite a number of experienced people, and from what I have read from Karen Armstrong etc. their theories seem quite plausible. We have this development around about the time of the old testament prophets, where a sudden awareness arises, that the goodness and the ideals which mankind commonly held in honour were in fact non-corporeal, not a given fact in nature, and yet here they were, holding such things in esteem.

How do you transport such intuitive understanding, and especially, how do you transport those ideals in a violent environment? The fact that human bings are storytellers and that we can abstract is well known, although I think those people then could do it better. They could climb aboard a story and travel with it. It was an experience, not just a lot of words. In experiencing, they came to understand things that enhanced their lives morally.

Of course the whole method is dated and we need people to interpret everything for us, but I think we have to overcome our narcissistic bias and appreciate that these people were inventing something that we are too bigoted to understand.

No personal offense meant.

I've probably repeated myself here, but I think it is important to note.

[Ecmandu]

Let's take the Noah story at face value ...

Assuming every animal pair on earth fit in the ark (which we know is physically impossible, because just insects alone in pairs would be too much for the dimensions of the ark, we have three possibilities...

The animals ate each other, and then starved to death; the animals didn't eat each other, and then starved to death, or animals never needed to eat again.!!!!!

We know for a fact, that the story of the family that was the progenitor of the entire human species, the new Adam.... is FALSE!!!

In genesis when it is very early stated in the "creation" story of the 7 days... humans have dominion over all the creatures / animals... so all those deaths from snakes, jelly fish, sharks, bears, lions, bees, ants... etc. PROVE gods words FALSE!!

Since Noah was the new Adam, and we know the story is impossible, and we know Jesus uses the Noah metaphor of the dove... we know the entire bible is impossible!!!

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Since Noah was the new Adam, and we know the story is impossible, and we know Jesus uses the Noah metaphor of the dove... we know the entire bible is impossible!!!

So ... what's your point? The entire bible being impossible has been known for a very long time.

Greek myths are impossible as well ... equally well known for a very long time.

A Greek native who emigrated to Canada helped me to understand what Bob is trying to explain ... myths are not factual events yet embodied within the myth are facts impossible to explain to mere mortals.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Let me illustrate using the impossible factual basis for the story of Noah's Ark. This story likely represents a glance back ... history ... and a glance forward ... prophetic.

Looking back some people remembered epochs where almost the entire human species was wiped out ... the last ice age is factual.

Looking ahead ... today, informed people understand that we stand on the threshold of yet another cataclysmic ... human triggered ... event that may indeed once again wipe out most of the human species.

[phyllo]

Noah's Ark

It's not an instructional manual for transporting animals. It's an instructional manual for attitude.

[James S Saint]

To look “reasonably” at religion, we have to have an idea of how those ancients thought, which seems to be a long way off from the way we think. We have this narcissistic bias that we are cleverer than those people so long ago, but if you don’t know what they were doing, then you probably end up on the wrong path.
.
.
.
Of course the whole method is dated and we need people to interpret everything for us, but I think we have to overcome our narcissistic bias and appreciate that these people were inventing something that we are too bigoted to understand.

Yep.

The first statement we can falsify in the Bible...

You can't falsify anything if you don't even know what they were saying.

[Bob]

Let's take the Noah story at face value ...

Assuming every animal pair on earth fit in the ark (which we know is physically impossible, because just insects alone in pairs would be too much for the dimensions of the ark, we have three possibilities...

The animals ate each other, and then starved to death; the animals didn't eat each other, and then starved to death, or animals never needed to eat again.!!!!!

We know for a fact, that the story of the family that was the progenitor of the entire human species, the new Adam.... is FALSE!!!

In genesis when it is very early stated in the "creation" story of the 7 days... humans have dominion over all the creatures / animals... so all those deaths from snakes, jelly fish, sharks, bears, lions, bees, ants... etc. PROVE gods words FALSE!!

Since Noah was the new Adam, and we know the story is impossible, and we know Jesus uses the Noah metaphor of the dove... we know the entire bible is impossible!!!

Did you read what we have been saying to you?

I think that there are many critics of religion who just make the same mistakes as the people they are criticising. I know that there are many religionists out there who believe in basically false ideas, but this isn't because the basic sources were false, but because the intentions of those sources were different to the use they are being put to today, and these people don't understand that.

In the past I went through a process of being an agnostic to becoming a believer with very impressive visions and intuitions, and then to understanding that the source I was reading had a far deeper meaning than I had realised. It was in conversation with philologists, theologians, psychologists I know and reading numerous popular authors that I came to realise that the members of the community I was in were oversimplifying what they were reading. The underlying implications of what the texts were saying were being overlooked, and the depth of insight was neglected. Issues in those texts were translated into modern issues with modern labels, and the superficiality became unbearable.

Another source of experience came from my vocation as a geriatric nurse, and an understanding of basic mistakes we make in our dealings with each other, which unfold into major and minor catastrophes in old age. The strength of simple, but integral faith that doesn't speculate but just reveals itself as a deep trust in the importance of neighbourly love, humility and honesty, is overwhelming. Where do we find the genesis of such behaviour? How can we grasp such faith? The truth is, we can't grasp it at all. We have to have faith in it. That is why "God is love". "God is Spirit". And an inexplicable experience with a wholly committed person to the "love of love" is described as the encounter with a "Son of God"!

As soon as you try to translate these things into a blockbluster movie, they become extremely shallow. There is a quote that I believe came from Martin Luther (I could be wrong) that "Hebrew is as deep as an ocean, Greek as deep as a river, but Latin is like a puddle". I'm afraid that with modern languages, it hasn't got any better and our attempts to translate these things into modern media exemplifies this.

That is why I am not a member of the church that oversimplifies, but I am deeply moved by the intuition and insight of the ancients - in whatever tradition!!