Not psychic. Just common sense and a bit of research.
youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA
The oldest profession is said to be prostitution. Where did it start?
The Temple Prostitute.
Socrates broke down our psyches as feeding two great wants or needs into just the two categories. Bread and circuses.
Socrates would have said that religions are a part of the circuses part of life, just as sex and Temple Prostitutes are.
Regards
DL
Right. That is the most difficult question to date here, why not?
As an ex-Catholic I can only attest that by His saying,
‘The first shall be last, and the last first’ This is such a profundity, that it is beyond description.
It perceives the coming of the great doubt of the cogito, it foretells of the coming of the new differential logic, while reducing the proud into utter humility.
This reversal, does nothing to alleviate the wrong conclusion about the cruel way this whole set up seems to signal. The deliverance of those, who are sacrificed into the abysmal conception of suffering and death, are perceived contrarily, a contrary not understood by those of little or no faith.
I would reply but do not know what you said.
If you are saying that fathers should bury their sons then your morals are satanic.
If you are saying the opposite then I agree that God is a prick for not doing what you and I would do.
Regards
DL
DL,
My copy, cut and paste tool is giving me fits so I will just reply without your quotes, sorry.
We do not have control of the original texts but, two main churches do have very ancient texts hidden from scholars, Jewish and Catholic. Israel and the Vatican hold and control any words of the ancient. The Dead Sea scrolls are of great interest , have you heard of them? Both are trying to gain control and hide context from these.
Stories passed down orally were more strict before written language. Context meaning and content were , well sacred. The tellers were trained. Once written language became the recorder interpretation and language ambiguity occurred. But, the oldest would have been the most true to the origin. Threads could be devoted to how written words have changed the truth of history. Fairly interesting aspect of sociology and anthropology.
A God sets forth rules. A parent sets forth rules. The followers and children are expected and taught to obey. But, given that these are sentient independent evolving creatures, self control and behaviors must be their own responsibility not the God or parent. You will be held responsible for young children’s behavior but, not adult. A species would be held responsible not its creator. Your kids are not your responsibility for their entire lives. It would be unethical. They commit a crime and then you are blamed and punished. That cannot be right. Yet you and others blame and convict a god just because it may have power to control. We do not want our parents to control us but, a God, the parent of a species must? How could the species grow and evolve? How could it truly learn if it never had to be self responsible? A God would want evolution and growth for the species not petted species. Hell of a lot of work just for a pet.
Bribes and sacrifices, well let’s look at these two . Our views on these two words has changed over the centuries. The two actually stem from same intent. Change or apology of/for behavior. I did this , please accept this to prove my intent to not do this . Or here compensation to not harm . Greater sacrifices or bribes mean more emotional intent , regret or fear of retribution. A famous story of God demanding a man to sacrifice his son but, stopping the deed. This was a direct God intervention.
Now humans with our pack/herd need to control the herd of individual, sentient, hunter gatherers , omniverous beings take an act and use it to create fear and control. Blame God, it wants this because you all did this. This you will think God should stop but, if a species of sentient individuals is to evolve past and truly learn , interference would hinder growth. If you keep your child from ever making mistakes or you continuously hold your child’s hand you keep that child dependent and immature.
An act distorted by humans cannot be put upon the creator/parent/God.
Onto civil courts. Lawyers plea bargain. This is bribery. In order to avoid prison time, people sacrifice their time, money and effort by paying fines and community service.
Or how about getting your record expunged by paying for it with money or community service? Yep and then you have what we call corrupt bribery and sacrifice.
Heck parenting even has bribery and sacrifice. Can’t avoid it if you want your kid to grow up right. Work hard and you get this. Etc etc.
We are talking of sacrifice or bribery to alter justice from punishing the guilty to punishing the innocent.
A parent does not accept the sacrifice of bribe from a guilty child and turn to punish the innocent one.
You did not deal with that type of scenario.
The bottom line here is —
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, — so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, — is immoral.
Regards
DL
What is KIS? Yes we can overcome nature and have and will. It is not natural to mix packs or herds. Yet we humans mix and mingle now. People breed and have friends outside their culture, ethnicity and religion. Normal animals do not do this, they kill others generally. Sacrifice was done to those not considered equal, below. It is not done now , in general. A few rare castes may.
A parent sends their child to war to be loyal and the loyal child obeys with their life. How is this different then what God did with that father? How is it ok for one but, not the other? And dowries are still done.
A God may be a fantasy , I do not know. I am an athiest. A God is a sentient being that humans see as a parental figure that will save their souls, protect them from true death and pain in this screwed up deadly world. And sure just like kids do , humans adults screw up, change things to suit, fabricate, control, bribe, sacrifice. We are not mature. But, if there were a God that popped in and completely directed us, we could never mature or evolve. You seem to resent this God and its followers even though there has been maturing.
To the texts. If original texts can be interpreted to remove the church leaders from power,they would hide it. But, they could not destroy unless they did not believe in their God.
Way way back before written language the storytellers were trained to not change words. They held a place of honor. Protégés were chosen and trained for years. Over time evolving came into play, changes occurred as ego developed into a realization of power. The ancient honor ceased. Written language had a hand as well due to interpretations and designs of words. This tribe saw this a bit differently than that tribe saw it.
I am giving you a really short version. I do not have time to put down all that I have studied over the decades. I ain’t no teacher 
.
I have no argument against this last.
As stories and myths, all religious holy books have value.
As history and truth, they are not worth the paper they are written on. If they are read literally, all they produce are idol worshiping fools.
Regards
DL
Seems like you like to make up stuff.
Let’s see if we have this straight: you know the motivations of religious leaders, mystics and participants. Their motivation is money.
You know what is going on in all these other minds. Is this a psychic claim?
[/quote]
Common sense is highly biased. Theism was common sense everywhere on earth and still is in most places. Saying common sense as justification in a philosophy forum is like saying ‘this is my opinion’ and nothing more. Let us actually see the common sense. Make the argument.
This is not even a bit of research and does not demonstrate your claim.
You are implying an argument here. Actually make the argument.
You realize that as part of your evidence you are appealing to authority (Socrates) by saying what he would have said. Is his what passes for evidence where you come from? It seems faith based. How is this different from someone quoting the Bible?
Common sense is highly biased. Theism was common sense everywhere on earth and still is in most places. Saying common sense as justification in a philosophy forum is like saying ‘this is my opinion’ and nothing more. Let us actually see the common sense. Make the argument.
This is not even a bit of research and does not demonstrate your claim.
You are implying an argument here. Actually make the argument.
You realize that as part of your evidence you are appealing to authority (Socrates) by saying what he would have said. Is his what passes for evidence where you come from? It seems faith based. How is this different from someone quoting the Bible?
[/quote]
“Theism was common sense everywhere on earth and still is in most places.”
How do you equate the belief in supernatural entities with common sense?
The front part of what I quoted was true in the distant past but not today.
Here is when it was true.
bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
As to religions and circuses.
youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA
Before the literalism and idol worship that Christianity and Islam have become, seeking God was entertaining. That is why Jesus preached to seek God.
That is also what I recommend.
You did not like my using Socrates and his sayings. If life is more than the two basic desires of bread and circuses that he reduced it to for man, then what would you add?
Regards
DL
And note. Here you try to shift the burden to me. You have yet to support your statement about religious people. I see no argument.
You leap on something I said and attack that, rather than actually support your own assertion.
The front part of what I quoted was true in the distant past but not today.
So religion before Christianity was entertaining. Do you mean only entertaining? Do you mean it was more fun? Is this really what Judaism, all the pagan and indigenous and shamanistic religions were like. HInduism?
What I wrote was that it was an appeal to authority.
[/quote]
Clearly people want more than bread and Circuses, since people who have both will often go through all sorts of anti-hedonist stuff in search of God or spirituality etc. But asking me questions is not an argument. What you are doing here is an implied fallacy. You are incredulous - that’s the kind of fallacy, incredulity - that there is something else and so suddenly you think it is my burden to demonstrate there is something else.
If you are arguing that everything is bread and circuses, and those satisfy all our desires, make the case that is true and try to take in religious phenomena in general for all people or at least most.
Is your only motivation for posting here money?
If it is not money, what is it?
Are you entertaining us?
If your only two motives are to get bread or to get entertainment why should we take your thoughts seriously?
If you have another motivation, why can’t other people, evne people you think have some ideas that are incorrect?
I assert many things. I do not know which particular one you speak to unless you show it.
Statistics show most theists, 70 odd % if I recall, believe in a real Satan and even more in a real Jesus, all without evidence or proof, while mostly ignoring what scholars are saying.
I would say that the common sense and logic of most theists are anything but sound.
Falling to a supernatural and supestitious belief is the last thing common sense and logic would lead to.
Common sense and logic ignores cultural assumptions and seeks the truth regardless of assumptions.
Science is led by common sense and logic. Not the supernatural.
Opinions are justified by a lack of argument against them.
If you are to make assertions about my assertions then show which one you are talking about. I am not a mind reader.
I am not sure what this refers to.
Not only entertaining. Some of it would have been enlightening. Seeking God was just seeking his best rules and laws top live life by. I find such debates and discussions to be entertaining. If you do not, why are you here doing what you should not like?
Clearly people want more than bread and Circuses, since people who have both will often go through all sorts of anti-hedonist stuff in search of God or spirituality etc.
[/quote]
And why do they bother if it is not entertaining to them? If not a part or their circus then why are they doing it?
You answering a simple question for yourself is more powerful of an argument from me as you come to the conclusion your answer comes to from your own mind. Do not fear doing it as it is good for you.
People generally do what is pleasing or rewarding for themselves and others. The bread part includes work to acquire what is required to sustain life and that life is sustained for the pleasures we can give ourselves.
Argue against that logic and reason if you can. Remember though that you are basically arguing against Socrates.
I have never asked anyone for any but if you are making an offer the P.M. me.
I see religions like Islam and Christianity as immoral constructs based on what kind of people they produce. They are producing mostly immoral homophobes and misogynous people. I will grant that Christianity is not as bad as Islam, since we have brought it to heel, but it is still not worthy of moral people thanks to its poor moral tenets, beginning with substitutionary punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.
If not, why are you here?
Because that is all you live for as well as you have not stated any other reason or item that you live for that does not fall into those two categories. If you have one then name it so that I can see if it is true or not.
I do not, and people who are incorrect should get enjoyment from being corrected as they gain one of the most pleasant things in life and entertainment. They learn something new and can scrap their false belief.
Regards
DL
one of my favorite quotes by Krishnamurti… no need for salvation by a savior… save yourself
I like the overall theme of your quote but I do not agree with his premise that life is so hard. Fact is, what got me questioning was why an evil man like me could have such an easy and happy life while others who I saw as good did not.
How would you rate your life?
Regards
DL
what you say is nebulous to the extreme, you evil? In which ways? How do you define “good and bad/evil”? Thats a long debate, I know. But I really wonder how anybody could feel good and happy about him/herself in the current planetary environment. If you think you are, maybe you just do not know enough. Most do not understand the notions of “good” and "evil, which is precisely why society is on the brink of WW3.
DL,
Brain farted on KIS. Sorry.
Species mix or try to mix when hormones are raging. ( wait til you see a rabbit humping a cat that was just trying to hunt that rabbit, yea that scene sticks with you. Poor humiliated Tom cat )But you will note that I said packs or herds, not horny or lonely individuals. And I used the word generally. A pack or herd may join another if resources are plentiful or danger surrounds. Pack/herd animals are for the most part highly territorial.
If you read genesis Old Testament . Abraham had spent many days with the philistines and had made covenants with them. That is why the test. An interesting thing that many do is context removal when it comes to controversial books. Those for the book and those against the book do this. Especially religious texts. This form of arguing really is futile , it feels as though no one wants truth, arguing is preferred , yea I know , tangent . ( we can discuss tactic later )
Many religious leaders are in it to make an easy living and power, can’t deny that. Some are not. Some truly want to help and truly believe. I have relatives that are true believers and are ministers. Damn fine souls. They have outside jobs to support their families. Money from their churches goes into charity. I cannot believe my relatives are the only believers and leaders that are good.
Religion like politics has sects and sects within sects. A general slap to a religion because some are crap is just as bad as ethnic bigotry or believing all of a political party follow the same politics. Religious laws are not all the same some churches are modern, a couple would burn me for being a redhead and left handed. You hate mysogeny and racial bigotry but, do you not see that saying everyone is the same in a Christian or Islamic or other religion is just the same type of bigotry? Blanket hate or dislike is harmful.
Many sects do not take the words literally. It cannot be taken literally by any intelligent human. Most just use it as just guidelines good or bad. The texts do carry accurate history. Who ruled and how, wars, agreements, behaviorisms of the time, locations of places. All significant to human social sciences. The godly parts might be due to some real good mushroom trips or imagination or a brilliant way to control the masses.
We all know what good and evil is. We are hardwired from birth to know.
I do not see WWIII as coming soon but doing war is more of our seeking to appease our love of drama than anything else. I think that Socrates would just call it a part of our circuses. He though that man was driven by just two basic desires. He called them bread and circuses. Meaning we look after our creature comforts, break, and our love of drama which would include the love of war. War, I see as being motivated by the same drama that had gladiators being made to fight to the death. War is just more participants in that drama.
youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ
Regards
DL
For sure. I think all the various cults had some type of drug or alcohol use as I see temples as places of entertainment first and foremost. Hence the Temple prostitutes.
“do you not see that saying everyone is the same in a Christian or Islamic or other religion is just the same type of bigotry? Blanket hate or dislike is harmful.”
Guilty as charged but I do not see it as harmful as my hate is directed at evil. If it was not, then it would be harmful for sure.
My being on the good side is bolstered and proven by my arguments and when theists refuse to discuss or argue for their position after denying it and telling me I am wrong.
While I believe that I am fighting evil, I will continue to hate those who hold to those evil ideas. I like the ideas of loving the sinner while hating the sin but do not see even the best sage doing so. Not even God as he sends the sinner to hell and not the sin. You have to hate to be able to do that. I do not think a sinner can be separated from his sin like that.
Regards
DL
Sounds like just more hate in the world. That’s counterproductive, no matter how you justify it.
Your discernment is quite poor.
Regards
DL
Discern this for me:
Misogynist : One who hates or mistrusts women.
If the misogynist hates women because he believes that they have evil ideas and behavior, then his reasoning and justification is exactly the same as what you gave for your own hatred.
Let me remind you :
The misogynist is also “fighting evil”.
He hates. You hate. Two hates do not make it right.