Why take religion so seriously?

[Kmwenye]

for me, religion is not so much about whether im happy without it or not. rather, it is that if god exists, and he is all knowing (plus all that is speculated about him) and he has sent messages through scripture on how best to deal with human affairs, then i would like to practise.

 

[waitasec]

If you want to get picky about it, everything is, ultimately, heresy, because none of us has the full truth.

That being said, I think universalism/apocatastasis is the best way to go -- not from a perspective of comfort, but from the perspective that, if God is both Alpha and Omega, then God is our end as surely as God is our beginning. We all came from God -- we all return to God.

with that in mind
does god care...?

 

[sojourner]

with that in mind
does god care...?

Does God care about ... what, exactly?

 

[waitasec]

Does God care about ... what, exactly?

the heresy, the dogma, the religions, faith...


i seriously believe the abrahamic religion, it's original intention, was to inspire a solidarity against a common enemy...

levitcus 19, spells it out
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.
3 “‘Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God.

4 “‘Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.

....snip....or those who wish to join...


33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

35 “‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. 36 Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah[d] and an honest hin.[e] I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt.

here i see that neighbor implies those who believe as you do... establishing the solidarity, the fraternity...the club...yoked by a common belief...during the tribal stage of judaism...

 

[sojourner]

the heresy, the dogma, the religions, faith...


i seriously believe the abrahamic religion, it's original intention, was to inspire a solidarity against a common enemy...

levitcus 19, spells it out
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.
3 “‘Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God.

4 “‘Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.

....snip....or those who wish to join...


33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

35 “‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. 36 Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah[d] and an honest hin.[e] I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt.

here i see that neighbor implies those who believe as you do... establishing the solidarity, the fraternity...the club...yoked by a common belief...during the tribal stage of judaism...

I don't think that's quite right. There was a high degree of community in the Hebraic (not correctly "Judaic") tradition. But it was more properly an outgrowth of that tightly-identified community -- not particularly "against" someone else.

I'm not convinced that I would ascribe such an anthropomorphic characteristic as emotion to God. But if God does present emotion, then I'm sure God cares about us -- but not particularly about the vehicle of our faith, so long as it is healthy.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think that's quite right. There was a high degree of community in the Hebraic (not correctly "Judaic") tradition. But it was more properly an outgrowth of that tightly-identified community -- not particularly "against" someone else.

thank you for the clarification...

correct me if i am wrong but weren't 'gods chosen' at odds with other
peoples...assyrians, babylonians and persians?

I'm not convinced that I would ascribe such an anthropomorphic characteristic as emotion to God.

then why, if i may ask, do you subscribe to a sacrifice...or don't you?

But if God does present emotion, then I'm sure God cares about us -- but not particularly about the vehicle of our faith, so long as it is healthy.

i still don't get why god, if there is one, would care either way if it was healthy or unhealthy faith...life still proves itself indifferent, it is humanity that chooses to respond...

 

[sojourner]

thank you for the clarification...

correct me if i am wrong but weren't 'gods chosen' at odds with other
peoples...assyrians, babylonians and persians?

Not sure I understand your question. The Hebrew YHWH was (as I understand it) a derivative of the earlier "El," which has its roots in earlier Mesopotamian mythos.

then why, if i may ask, do you subscribe to a sacrifice...or don't you?

I do not. Christ's self-sacrifice, IMO, did not "atone" for anything. it is important in that, through his death, God entered fully into the human experience. The self-sacrifice also taught us an important lesson in both the attitude of self-giving and the notion that Christ's teachings were so true that they were worth dying for.

i still don't get why god, if there is one, would care either way if it was healthy or unhealthy faith...life still proves itself indifferent, it is humanity that chooses to respond...

On some levels, life is indifferent. But life also presents us with many examples of care -- and care for our well-being. Faith is not an isolated exercise. It is relationship between us and the "Life Source." So that care would manifest itself in ways that are healthy for us. The care that is presented is manifest in things like the air we breathe, the sun that provides nutrients, the earth that provides food and shelter, among others. Again, I'm not convinced that the care is, on any level "emotional" as we would define "emotional."

 

[bain-druie]

Criminals fear the law, they run, and I as a sinner should fear God, because I fear justice.

If I misunderstand and mis-state your beliefs, please feel free to correct me; I'm quite familiar with fundamentalist thinking, and that seems to be your thought pattern. As such, you fear the extremely disproportionate judgment of eternal damnation and torture, for merely being born a member of (per your beliefs) Adam's race. The "sins" you actually commit are mere icing on the cake of Original Sin and Human Depravity.

In this sense, the analogy with N Korea is quite fitting; your god is a paranoid narcissistic petty tyrant. Justice is not a concept anyone like that is familiar with, by its definition: "Justice - fairness: fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made." Source define justice - Bing DICTIONARY

It is a tragic thing to live this way, in fear and without love.

 

[waitasec]

Not sure I understand your question. The Hebrew YHWH was (as I understand it) a derivative of the earlier "El," which has its roots in earlier Mesopotamian mythos.

well just as christianity, judaism and islam are at odds concerning their doctrine i suppose...each religion gives a sense of unity...even though their god may have been derived by a common mythos.

I do not. Christ's self-sacrifice, IMO, did not "atone" for anything. it is important in that, through his death, God entered fully into the human experience. The self-sacrifice also taught us an important lesson in both the attitude of self-giving and the notion that Christ's teachings were so true that they were worth dying for.

i think it was intended for the jewish experience
as i see it, he was meant for the jews first and foremost...the most telling passage is in matthew 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

however, in mark chapter 16:15
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

but as you are well aware, the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20...

which makes matthew 28 suspect because it uses mark as a source...(according to most bible scholars)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


the jesus followers who adopted that view severed themselves from the jews who rejected jesus...setting up the stage for the jesus movement ...the reason why the gospels were in circulation in the first place...
i think it is a reflection of our current state of morality that would accept his sacrifice for the human experience, when it was really for the jews first and foremost...he was supposed to be their messiah...
had they not expected a messiah, he wouldn't have come...

i wonder if there are any references of jesus saying he came for the gentiles in either mark or matthew (other then what i mentioned)...i can see why it would be in luke and especially in john...but if you know of any passages in mark or matthew...i'd like to see it...

luke 19:9
9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

the lost sheep...was referenced earlier in an parable in luke 15
so what i get from here is the lost sheep are the lost jews...
but since it's in luke the writer seems to want to separate himself from the jewish community and welcome the greco roman audience into the flock
for the same reason a preacher wants to have his sermons on syndication...

On some levels, life is indifferent. But life also presents us with many examples of care -- and care for our well-being. Faith is not an isolated exercise. It is relationship between us and the "Life Source." So that care would manifest itself in ways that are healthy for us. The care that is presented is manifest in things like the air we breathe, the sun that provides nutrients, the earth that provides food and shelter, among others. Again, I'm not convinced that the care is, on any level "emotional" as we would define "emotional."

i think when we treat our fellow human with kindness and respect,
or just paying ones good fortune forward, is when we find and taste a utopian like state... because we are more a like then we are different...
another reason why i disagree with the concept of religion (the big 3) because it instills division.

 

[sojourner]

i think it was intended for the jewish experience
as i see it, he was meant for the jews first and foremost...the most telling passage is in matthew 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

Of course. That was the culture in which it was formed.

however, in mark chapter 16:15
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

but as you are well aware, the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20...

which makes matthew 28 suspect because it uses mark as a source...(according to most bible scholars)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Not at all. Since the "long ending" of Mark is a later interpolation, Matthew does not depend on it.

the jesus followers who adopted that view severed themselves from the jews who rejected jesus...setting up the stage for the jesus movement ...the reason why the gospels were in circulation in the first place...

You're not getting the nuance of that passage. What it really says is: Go and make ethne (us) out of laos (them). It is a unifying principle. Xy was not meant to be a new-and-different religion, but an attitude within the existing culture. Judaism tended to be exclusive, hence the lawyer's question in Lk. 10 "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus sought to change that attitude and make Judaism more hospitable -- to broaden its world view.

i think it is a reflection of our current state of morality that would accept his sacrifice for the human experience, when it was really for the jews first and foremost...he was supposed to be their messiah...
had they not expected a messiah, he wouldn't have come...

But he was not the Messiah they expected.

i wonder if there are any references of jesus saying he came for the gentiles in either mark or matthew (other then what i mentioned)...i can see why it would be in luke and especially in john...but if you know of any passages in mark or matthew...i'd like to see it...

I'll look when I have time...

another reason why i disagree with the concept of religion (the big 3) because it instills division.

Because religion is particular to culture. Xy was never supposed to be that. it was supposed to be pan-cultural.

 

[waitasec]

Judaism tended to be exclusive, hence the lawyer's question in Lk. 10 "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus sought to change that attitude and make Judaism more hospitable -- to broaden its world view.

but wasn't luke's audience greco-roman? i would be surprised to see that message in mark or matthew [neighbor meaning your fellow human, rather than your fellow jew]
edit:
it would be very daring if it were a roman that helped the jew...the samaritans were not considered to be the jews equal, rather a lowly sect.
"the political reality of the day was of a dominant [roman] power overseeing the life on a day-to-day basis..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/jews.html

But he was not the Messiah they expected.

but who was expecting a messiah...?

Because religion is particular to culture. Xy was never supposed to be that. it was supposed to be pan-cultural.

Xy will never be pan cultural...it is impossible... philosophy however can be.

 

[waitasec]

Judaism tended to be exclusive, hence the lawyer's question in Lk. 10 "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus sought to change that attitude and make Judaism more hospitable -- to broaden its world view.

another thing i would like to add here is...why did jesus pick a samaritan?
samaritans are, "the adherents to Samaritanism, an Abrahamic religion closely related to Judaism."
-wiki

pertaining to the lost sheep perhaps?
so i still disagree that neighbor is meant to have a broader world view considering whom he decided to use...
again, had he picked a roman it wouldn't have been attractive o the romans considering the political climate and who luke's audience was...

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I am fascinated by religion (one of the main reasons for hanging around here) but I don't understand why some people take religion so seriously.
Can someone explain to me why some people take religion so seriously?

I mean, I don't see that it matters if God/gods exists or not.
I am quite happy not knowing.
When I hear my children laughing, I feel I know all I need to know about life, the universe and everything.

If God exists he doesn't seem to be very concerned about communicating any particular message to the human race. Many people seem to think they have figured out what God it trying to say. But many of these people seem to disagree with each other on what that message is, and some disagrre so much that they hit each other over the head with nasty things that hurt.

What is the big deal?

on the long term there is a destiny, who cares?

I am feeling Good now

 

[sojourner]

but wasn't luke's audience greco-roman? i would be surprised to see that message in mark or matthew [neighbor meaning your fellow human, rather than your fellow jew]
edit:
it would be very daring if it were a roman that helped the jew...the samaritans were not considered to be the jews equal, rather a lowly sect.
"the political reality of the day was of a dominant [roman] power overseeing the life on a day-to-day basis..."

Luke was writing to Gentile Christians. Luke was interested in the historical shift that was occurring with the Jesus Event, that is, the spread of Xy to other cultures. The message is for people who (like Samaritans) would have not been accepted as "neighbor" by judaic Xians. The message here is that Xy applies inclusively, not exclusively.

but who was expecting a messiah...?

Xy will never be pan cultural...it is impossible... philosophy however can be.

These two statements are linked, because they both represent the same mind set that Jesus refutes.
Xy is, by its nature, pan-cultural. In fact, Xy has been the most successful when it does not impose itself onto a given culture. Only when spirituality becomes more about relationship than about doctrine, rules and creedal statements can it do what it's supposed to do.

another thing i would like to add here is...why did jesus pick a samaritan?
samaritans are, "the adherents to Samaritanism, an Abrahamic religion closely related to Judaism."
-wiki

pertaining to the lost sheep perhaps?
so i still disagree that neighbor is meant to have a broader world view considering whom he decided to use...
again, had he picked a roman it wouldn't have been attractive o the romans considering the political climate and who luke's audience was...

Luke's audience would have been familiar with the Samaritans and their status among the Jewish religious elite. In fact, they would have been in the same boat with the Samaritans. It makes perfect sense, if you really understand Luke's audience.

 

[waitasec]

Luke was writing to Gentile Christians. Luke was interested in the historical shift that was occurring with the Jesus Event, that is, the spread of Xy to other cultures. The message is for people who (like Samaritans) would have not been accepted as "neighbor" by judaic Xians. The message here is that Xy applies inclusively, not exclusively.

but using a samaritan, would mean X... not Xy because samaritans were closely related to judaism...
in other words...luke intended for Xy not jesus because of the social and political structure in Jesus time

These two statements are linked, because they both represent the same mind set that Jesus refutes.
Xy is, by its nature, pan-cultural. In fact, Xy has been the most successful when it does not impose itself onto a given culture. Only when spirituality becomes more about relationship than about doctrine, rules and creedal statements can it do what it's supposed to do.

can you point to when that has ever happened?

Luke's audience would have been familiar with the Samaritans and their status among the Jewish religious elite. In fact, they would have been in the same boat with the Samaritans. It makes perfect sense, if you really understand Luke's audience.

this i agree with...
because luke's gospel intended for Xy to happen...

 

[sojourner]

but using a samaritan, would mean X... not Xy because samaritans were closely related to judaism...
in other words...luke intended for Xy not jesus because of the social and political structure in Jesus time

Can you clarify here? Not sure where you're going with this.

can you point to when that has ever happened?

Sure! For starters, Patrick's work in Ireland in the 400s. Second, Vincent Donovan's work with the Masai in Africa. Third, Bediako's work in the indigenous tribes of Ghana. Fourth, the work with modern Korean/Americans and Native/Americans. Within the framework of these cultures, Xy thrived -- and is thriving. And Xy looks MARKEDLY different there than it does in Europe or mainstream America.

 

[waitasec]

Can you clarify here? Not sure where you're going with this.

in time time of jesus, there was tension between the romans and the jews, correct? therefore "neighbor" didn't include the romans only jews from jesus POV because the romans were the 'enemy' the ones committing the persecution...however since the gospel of luke was written after the destruction of the temple (about 20 or so years)...judaism was changing and the jesus movement that started from jesus time morphed it's way into adopting the idea jesus was for more than just the jews he was for the gentile...hence luke's audience

Sure! For starters, Patrick's work in Ireland in the 400s. Second, Vincent Donovan's work with the Masai in Africa. Third, Bediako's work in the indigenous tribes of Ghana. Fourth, the work with modern Korean/Americans and Native/Americans. Within the framework of these cultures, Xy thrived -- and is thriving. And Xy looks MARKEDLY different there than it does in Europe or mainstream America.

i will look into this a little more closely...and get back to you on it...

 

[sojourner]

in time time of jesus, there was tension between the romans and the jews, correct? therefore "neighbor" didn't include the romans only jews from jesus POV because the romans were the 'enemy' the ones committing the persecution...however since the gospel of luke was written after the destruction of the temple (about 20 or so years)...judaism was changing and the jesus movement that started from jesus time morphed it's way into adopting the idea jesus was for more than just the jews he was for the gentile...hence luke's audience



i will look into this a little more closely...and get back to you on it...

I believe you're essentially correct here, at least at a cursory glance. The idea, though, had a lot more to do with purity than "enemy." The Samaritans were not religious neighbors because their form of Judaism was impure. Not sure your idea completely translates neatly for that reason.

 

[waitasec]

I believe you're essentially correct here, at least at a cursory glance. The idea, though, had a lot more to do with purity than "enemy." The Samaritans were not religious neighbors because their form of Judaism was impure. Not sure your idea completely translates neatly for that reason.

that's an interesting thing to say...
according to whom were the samaritans impure...i'm sure the samaritans would disagree...
according to the jewish elite they were the lost sheep...right?
but what did the samaritans think of the elite?

 

[sojourner]

that's an interesting thing to say...
according to whom were the samaritans impure...i'm sure the samaritans would disagree...
according to the jewish elite they were the lost sheep...right?
but what did the samaritans think of the elite?

The point is that the story was written from the Jewish -- not the Samaritan -- POV. Don't convolute the issue with vague "what-ifs." it won't get you anywhere. And you can't get back from there.