Does having a religion make you a better person?

[YoursTrue]

I have observed people both with and without religion in their lives. From my observations people with religion are significantly happier, have a more positive outlook on life and death, and will stand up against bullies.

People who don't have religion or left their religion are usually bitter with bitter attitudes and want you to be miserable like them so they entice you to be miserable like them. I wonder if the bitterness comes from lack of religious meaning.

That's an interesting thought about happiness and religion or misery and no religion. There are people who claim to be very happy and there are many who are depressed, sometimes take medication. I was just reading about bees and their habits. (Book by a staunch believer in evolution.) For SOME REASON, I don't think bees think about religion or communicate thoughts about whether God exists or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Luckily there is no hell.

The Biblical recognition of hell is different from the concocted version by, let's say, people like Dante who wrote about the hell he was likely taught about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not all, and those that do generally promote these only amongst their own group. Moral obligation should be demographically consistent.

As far as it goes, some groups insist on fighting against other groups demographically speaking that is. And they can be predominantly calling themselves Christian of one sort or another. I don't know that much about wars between various sects of Islam or Buddhists, if there are any among Buddhists. In other words, moral obligation is possibly thrown out the religious window.

 

[Valjean]

AnthonyGiarrusso said:
I have observed people both with and without religion in their lives. From my observations people with religion are significantly happier, have a more positive outlook on life and death, and will stand up against bullies.

People who don't have religion or left their religion are usually bitter with bitter attitudes and want you to be miserable like them so they entice you to be miserable like them. I wonder if the bitterness comes from lack of religious meaning.

It seems to me that it's been the theists who were most worried about proper thoughts and behavior, offending God, propitiating God, and averting His wrath.
Isn't it the atheists who are the happy-go-lucky ones?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It seems to me that it's been the theists who were most worried about proper thoughts and behavior, offending God, propitiating God, and averting His wrath.
Isn't it the atheists who are the happy-go-lucky ones?

Not necessarily. I know plenty of atheists that are worried about proper thoughts and behavior, offending their peers, propitiating their peers, and avoiding their wrath.

People who are overly concerned about what others think, whether it is gods or other people, tend to not be so happy-go-lucky.

 

[Heyo]

People who are overly concerned about what others think, whether it is gods or other people, tend to not be so happy-go-lucky.

And people who don't care what others think tend to be jerks.

 

[Valjean]

Not necessarily. I know plenty of atheists that are worried about proper thoughts and behavior, offending their peers, propitiating their peers, and avoiding their wrath.

People who are overly concerned about what others think, whether it is gods or other people, tend to not be so happy-go-lucky.

Peers, not gods. Personal disapproval, not divine wrath and existential threat to both self and society.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Biblical recognition of hell is different from the concocted version by, let's say, people like Dante who wrote about the hell he was likely taught about.

Luckily both are equally fictitious - although Dante's was better written.

And Dante wasn't writing primarily from his teaching (he would have known better), but was rather using Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven as an allegory for man's spiritual journey and self-discovery. Obviously a great deal of poetic license was required.

 

[YoursTrue]

Luckily both are equally fictitious - although Dante's was better written.

And Dante wasn't writing primarily from his teaching (he would have known better), but was rather using Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven as an allegory for man's spiritual journey and self-discovery. Obviously a great deal of poetic license was required.

Perhaps you might like to learn that the biblical version of hell really matches with that which has no thought or feelings in the grave or physical death state.

 

[YoursTrue]

Luckily both are equally fictitious - although Dante's was better written.

And Dante wasn't writing primarily from his teaching (he would have known better), but was rather using Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven as an allegory for man's spiritual journey and self-discovery. Obviously a great deal of poetic license was required.

Perhaps you might like to learn that the biblical version of hell really matches with that which has no thought or feelings in the grave or physical death state. There is no consciousness in hell.

Luckily both are equally fictitious - although Dante's was better written.

And Dante wasn't writing primarily from his teaching (he would have known better), but was rather using Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven as an allegory for man's spiritual journey and self-discovery. Obviously a great deal of poetic license was required.

I remember in college I wrote for an English class a paper on Pilgrim's Progress. The teacher didn't like it. I wrote that it was more or less ridiculous. Not that wording. That was before I even believed in God. I can only guess she was a religious person and resented my distaste for the description.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps you might like to learn that the biblical version of hell really matches with that which has no thought or feelings in the grave or physical death state.

If that is so,then Jesus was off base with his "Lake of Fire" rhetoric.

But if "Hell" is merely oblivion (as you seem to describe it), then I fail to see the problem.

"I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me one bit." - Mark Twain.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps you might like to learn that the biblical version of hell really matches with that which has no thought or feelings in the grave or physical death state. There is no consciousness in hell.

Again, Oblivion is hardly a thing to be feared.

I remember in college I wrote for an English class a paper on Pilgrim's Progress. The teacher didn't like it. I wrote that it was more or less ridiculous. Not that wording. That was before I even believed in God. I can only guess she was a religious person and resented my distaste for the description.

Perhaps, but I was once taken to task over a scathing criticism of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which I called "slapstick."

The professor's comment was "Discuss, don't dismiss."

 

[YoursTrue]

If that is so,then Jesus was off base with his "Lake of Fire" rhetoric.

But if "Hell" is merely oblivion (as you seem to describe it), then I fail to see the problem.

"I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me one bit." - Mark Twain.

Nope, the use of the term lake of fire was used symbolically to indicate total destruction. No life back ever. Look up Revelation 19:20; 20:14; 21:8

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, Oblivion is hardly a thing to be feared.



Perhaps, but I was once taken to task over a scathing criticism of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which I called "slapstick."

The professor's comment was "Discuss, don't dismiss."

Yes well I guess he didn't want your reaction to it.
As you mention it, life was what God gave Adam and Eve. Death, not torture, was what He said would happen to them if they did what he told them not to do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes well I guess he didn't want your reaction to it.

*she

As you mention it, life was what God gave Adam and Eve. Death, not torture, was what He said would happen to them if they did what he told them not to do.

Except He said it would happen to them on that very day... which it didn't.

Contrawise, the serpent said that their eyes would be opened, and the Bible's narrative says that's exactly what happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

*she



Except He said it would happen to them on that very day... which it didn't.

Contrawise, the serpent said that their eyes would be opened, and the Bible's narrative says that's exactly what happened.

Adam was told that if he ate from the tree he will die. It doesn't mean that on that same day he would be dead as we might think of someone dropping dead, but that he would be heading towards death from that day forward with no return. The King James Bible says it this way (other Bible have slightly different wording):
Genesis 2:17 -- "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ("in" the day can be also understood to mean like 'in your grandfather's day...' but he received the death penalty the day he ate from the tree) We know Adam and Eve did not physically die entirely on the 24 hour day they ate the forbidden fruit. And the word day has variations to it, does not have to mean a 24-hour period. Further, keep in mind "in the day," or "on the day" it is said they WILL surely die does not mean they would drop dead that very day but would be headed for death certainly. The death penalty was imposed in or on that day.

 

[YoursTrue]

*she



Except He said it would happen to them on that very day... which it didn't.

Contrawise, the serpent said that their eyes would be opened, and the Bible's narrative says that's exactly what happened.

We surely know they weren't blind before that. So that they 'saw' doesn't mean they had clear vision whereas before that they were blind. There's more to it. I know that may be a bit abstruse, but we can discuss that later if possible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We surely know they weren't blind before that. So that they 'saw' doesn't mean they had clear vision whereas before that they were blind. There's more to it. I know that may be a bit abstruse, but we can discuss that later if possible.

Indeed - "eyes open" in the figurative sense, with knowledge of good and evil.

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed - "eyes open" in the figurative sense, with knowledge of good and evil.

I'd like to go over that a bit. We know from the Biblical account Adam and Eve were not created blind. (We agree there, I think.) Adam was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if he did, he would die, in other words, have the death process working in him starting the very day if he ate from that tree. We know from the account they did not lay down and die that 24 hour day. But on the day they ate from the tree, the death penalty would be imposed. I usually take one point at a time. So let's move on a bit.
Genesis 2:9 - And God Jehovah caused to spring from the soil every tree inviting in looks and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (The Bible in Living English)
Thus there were two trees spoken of distinctly in that sentence, distinguishing them from the rest of the trees in the garden. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (or good and evil, depending on which translation is being used.)
I'll try to go into that more later.
Something to consider is that the serpent approached Eve, not Adam. But God told Adam, not Eve, the following in chapter 2 of Genesis: "Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” That was before Eve was created. Obviously Adam must have told Eve what God said about that.
(Later perhaps for more. Have a good night's sleep.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'd like to go over that a bit. We know from the Biblical account Adam and Eve were not created blind. (We agree there, I think.) Adam was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if he did, he would die, in other words, have the death process working in him starting the very day if he ate from that tree. We know from the account they did not lay down and die that 24 hour day. But on the day they ate from the tree, the death penalty would be imposed. I usually take one point at a time. So let's move on a bit.

That interpretation fits.

Genesis 2:9 - And God Jehovah caused to spring from the soil every tree inviting in looks and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (The Bible in Living English)
Thus there were two trees spoken of distinctly in that sentence, distinguishing them from the rest of the trees in the garden. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (or good and evil, depending on which translation is being used.)

Yes, we know.

I'll try to go into that more later.
Something to consider is that the serpent approached Eve, not Adam.

Which, unfortunately, has contributed to a history of religious misogyny.

But God told Adam, not Eve, the following in chapter 2 of Genesis: "Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” That was before Eve was created. Obviously Adam must have told Eve what God said about that.
(Later perhaps for more. Have a good night's sleep.)

Yes, and?