The Bible is written for the soul

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Many Christians will probably oppose my statement, but the assumption that the historical value of the Bible is what needs to be upheld contradicts the need for a timeless spiritual document. It may be that the Bible is also legend, but it most certainly is a bases of pedagogy, much like other Epics are, for example Homers Illiad, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish, Mahābhārata and Ramayana (Hindu mythology), as well as the works of Virgil and Dante Alighieri,

Though the Bible is an anthology and not one “long narrative poem in elevated stature presenting characters of high position in adventures forming an organic whole through their relation to a central heroic figure and through their development of episodes important to the history of a nation or race”, the Bible’s central figure is God and his various Prophets – including of course, from a Christian perspective, the important singular figure of the Christ Jesus.

The modern age has, since the age of enlightenment, tended towards an intellectual view of the world and has regarded mythology as superseded by the acquisition of knowledge, but we all know that knowledge cannot replace wisdom, even if knowledge enhances wisdom, but lack of wisdom creates ignorance. It has been noted by many learned people of our day, that we are lacking wisdom in the most important matters. Although decisions are made on a long-termed bases, and the longevity of mankind has grown, we take less time to make such important decisions and we do not call on wisdom to guide us.

In the days when such epics were verbal tradition it was important to have a record of archetypal decisions and experiences, figures and heroes upon which the illiterate society could find orientation, inspiration and moral guidance. The stories do not address the head as much as the heart. It may be that the story is historical, but it is irrelevant. It may be that the story is not historical, but that is equally irrelevant. The lesson is for the soul, and the epic nurtures important soul-figures within society.

This is something which our head-heavy society can hardly understand, but we know instinctively when something stirs deeper in us, and it is not seldom called soul, or soulful. There are a great number of people who refer to their own history as the source of their problems, encouraged by modern psychotherapy, blaming fathers or mothers, or other people for what they have become. However, this historical ground is also the basic material of everything we are. There is a risk, but also a chance in our family background, and it is dependant on what we do with what we’re given.

This is also the story of the Bible, which is filled with rogues and heroes, as well as saints and devils. The spirit of the Bible describes the soul experience of mankind in this uncertain and impermanent world and its stories guide us to make the right choices – as long as we read them in the way they were meant to be read – and it is this spirit which blows “whence it will” and you can never be quite sure where it is. It is only the “birth from above” that changes things, when the soul is empowered and able to cope with the trials and tribulations set before it. Those looking for an ultimate solution will always be disappointed, since sadness, pain and suffering are not eliminated, but are even described as pedagogical instruments of spiritual development.

What do you think?

Take Care

2

If you don’t need anything from the Bible, then go about your way peacefully in silence.
There’s no reason to piss on everyone that finds it valuable to their needs in their spirit just because you have a vested spite with assholes that happen to hold the same religion.

You may only see uselessness and disgust; others will not, and that does not inherently class them into idiot, chauvinistic, oppressive, assholes.

And I disagree; the tangents of characters in the Bible are unique to the Bible.
Others exist similar in only the tangent of compassion; not every other tangent in the Bible; all Biblical canons.

Does that mean everyone needs to read the Bible?
No.
Does that mean there’s anything wrong with someone finding something about themselves and their lives from reading the Bible?
Not at all.

What you largely hate; isn’t a book.
You hate oppressive people pushing their dogmatic agenda.
If they were mute, you wouldn’t care.

And before you jump to asserting anything regarding stupidity in any format of the reference to the subject…people will be stupid regardless of what the hell you place in front of them; it doesn’t take the Bible to make someone stupid; it takes willful ignorance.

3

Do you have the same opinion about the other examples I gave?

I actually pointed to the fact that the Bible, similar to the other examples, does not really give solutions but examples of what happens in this world. It is worked out in a story, not an analysis - the analysis comes after the story is told.

Your mistake is that you project the modern day issues onto a world that didn’t have all of the same issues we have today. What the Bible would have you do is not project but tell your story - and then compare. You, like most of us in our time, tend to analyse before you have told your story. In the end you might find that your criticism doesn’t apply and maybe that you have even contributed to those things which ail you yourself.

Take Care

4

So you answer a question with a question. If you do have the same opinion about the other examples I gave, then you are just another example of modern man’s inability to accept that the ancients really were smarter than we are, and that our intellectual bias overlooks the holistic manner of the way people looked at the world, using all of their senses and transporting wisdom into proverbs and easy to memorize verse. Having just left the bloodiest century in recorded history, perhaps with the only comparison being the thirty years war, we can hardly say that human-beings have learnt from the mistakes of the past.

It is a good indication for what I say in that around about the same time in various cultures, Epics were the standard means to transport what we would call psychological understanding, again transported in a manner that could be told around the fire and instilled into people from childhood. Of course there were the redactions which put the Bible in a framework before it was written down, but we must remember that the contributions to the Bible were taken from Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and other cultures which were older than Israel and are well documented. A visit to Egypt shows parallels between stories about Ramses and David for example, and figures like Joseph are missing in the records – probably because, even if he were a real historical figure, Pharaoh would have claimed his diligence for himself.

The writers wrote the Epics using archetypes in a way that would capture the imagination – we call it “novel” today – but of course scholars have found numerous plagiarisms of Rulers who wanted to have themselves appear to be the archetypes of their people. Modern history has a completely different intention. Whereas we are today more concerned with what happened, the epics describe the feelings and motivations, giving incorporeal influences the form of demons, angels and gods, describing how it was. However, careful study by psychoanalysts like Thomas Moore has shown that the authors had a deeply rooted understanding of human motivations, “dysfunctional” relationships, and various psychotic disturbances.

The interesting thing about the Bible is that it is quite critical of the path which Israel took from the beginning. The covenant between God and Abraham is only fulfilled by God, not by Abraham and his heirs. Isaac has to go through some of (exactly) the same lessons as Abraham, and Jacob is a defrauder. His sons are a marauding gang and they sell the youngest son into slavery. [correction=]Judah [not Jacob] is deceived by his daughter-in-law, who is disguised as a prostitute and becomes pregnant by him. These are stories about real life, but they are stories which are teaching the reader about morality by describing what happens, when it fails and has no grounding.

Yes, there are numerous examples of horrific crimes, it was a violent time – has it changed much? But the law is an example of a moral statute that was hung so high, that Israel failed to achieve it. I believe that the Gospels teach us what Jeremiah had already told Israel, that the moral teaching was so high so that we come to understand that it is inner transformation which is needed if we are to reach our calling, not observance of a law. The observance of the law is incorporated into such transformation, but morality cannot cause such transformation. The tragedy described in the Gospel (especially Mark), as in any literature, can have a transformative aspect, because it is a story, not an analysis. It calls us to tell our story to mentors (also a Greek character) who can help us form wisdom out of the primordial gunk that we are made up of.

Take Care

5

I enjoyed reading this op. I liked it. I like the idea of a story telling the truth . so I’m not going to undermine it by being picky .i mean one could always say … hey wait a minute … how come you lump Christians like that …and how do you mean historical value……historical value differs from one person to another and and and

All of that lumping is no big deal really because you can unify the whole thing within the context of western civilization . problem arises when you throw in the mix something like Hinduism . it’s one thing throwing the Greeks, the Romans , old English like Beowulf and renaissance and enlightenment , modernism because all that falls within the heading of western civilization . but the second you throw in stuff like Hinduism or other systems of beliefs then historical context becomes crucial in terms of the contact between these variant civilizations because that contact was influenced by these different systems of beliefs . . You have to look at that history and determine if it exhibits any grounds in terms of forging such a timeless piece / there might not be .

Something about quido got me wondering .it took me a while to figure out it-ice quido- is talking about a rule in the bible.actually In the bible there is rule that says if a virgin crossing a field gets raped then the rapist has to marry her . that’s odd. I mean for someone who professes distaste for the bible should know about some obscure and time forgotten stuff like that . this almost reminiscent of the modus oprandi of those guys from different religions when they go at each other . they dig deep in each other books and come up with odd stuff to hit the other guy with .

Quido also says that the parts that are okay in the bible can be found somewhere in a more fulfilling manner . really ? like where quido ? where and what is that somewhere quido? frankly its hard to imagine a quido being anything beside a programmed robot .

one other thing . rape is actually might be a good topic to shed light on the OP. the reason why i couldn’t figure out quido , what he was talking about is because where I’m at rape is menace you consider in relation to war . the victors rape the women of the defeated side .so in my mind i was wondering does the bible sanction rape of captured women ? so that what i was thinking

okay i will be back with two stories . real life stories .

6

Bob gave a good response for the other angle, but I just wanted to touch on the fact that neither of those are quite so valid of a claim.

Firstly; homosexuality in the Hebrew isn’t condemned quite like we enjoy translations in English like, oh…Leviticus 18:22 where in our Bible’s it reads: “abomination”.
The Hebrew used is תּוֹעֵבָה and this word is anything but direct.
For instance, it is also used to describe the Hebrews in regards to the Egyptians (Genesis 46:34).
The word, at best; means something that is a negative for one society by comparison to another.

Thereby, you find Leviticus 18:22 listing laying with a man as a woman alongside of the religious outlining of the Canaanites.
And thus, you have an outline of simply not participating in their culture regardless; that it was nothing of good for the Hebrews being addressed.

It doesn’t say “God hates faggots”.

Then there is Paul; Paul throws us the likes of 1 Corinthians 6:9:
Firstly; Paul suggested as far as never even marrying if you could resist: so extremist is an apt description of Paul.

Secondly; the phrasing in the Greek here is hardly just simply homosexuality.
It is definitely more speaking of a Roman practice regarding male prostitution which was popular at the time.
And this form of prostitution could get really…well…degrading.

The word being used is ἀρσενοκοῖται, which literally means to abuse.
The etymology of the word has been taken to become it’s definition, yet the word’s use is for such subjects as any anal sexual act (male or female), rapists, and extortion.
Aristides uses the word to describe the Greek gods raping of mankind, for instance.

The word, in short, isn’t a word for consensual, devoted, same-sex relationships.
It was a word for taking and abusing with utter disregard in the most violating methods one could do so.

The passage (and other similar) was essentially stating not to allow oneself to be this, as Paul viewed many in prostitution to be (which there could be some truth there to that for the time period).

As to the raped women verse.
Ah yes; the classic verse everyone loves to jump on for picking on the Bible for insane orders.
Had you picked something like Moses instructing to kill every man, woman, and children and then being angry when his soldiers came back with women and children and had them kill them defenselessly right then and there before arriving to camp…you would have a much better claim to insane sections of the Bible.
This one, however, isn’t one of them.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Commonly:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

However I would be quick to point out that “rape” isn’t the word in the Hebrew.
Instead it just refers to having sex with an unmarried virgin (to lie down with).
There isn’t even mention of force or aggravation.

This is detrimental to the father of that woman as no further man will marry her after such if it is made known.
Hence the condition about being caught.

If that happens (being caught; not in the act, but the woman doesn’t…sorry…bleed on bedding with the man she is later married off to, or if someone finds out prior), then the man responsible for removing her virginity is to take responsibility for repaying the father of the woman and justifying her virgin status by marrying her so as not to make her denied her right’s as a woman in the Hebrew culture for the rest of her life.
The payment is a mandate that they will pay at least a sum of money, as any customary man would in honor of marrying the daughter; as to not dishonor the father yet again.

The comment about denying divorce is so that the man cannot marry her and then divorce her for having sex outside of marriage (which she had with him).

Without going even longer; which I could easily…the cut to the chase is that the discussion is theft and slander; not rape.
The woman isn’t the focus of that rule; the loss of value to the Father of the woman is the discussion.
The woman’s only small discussion is at the tail end disallowing the man to divorce her and leave her with no value.

7

They weren’t “smarter”.
They thought differently.

Bob’s point is that the older cultures were more open to intuitive logic rather than reasoned logic.
That is well documented.

8

I believe that the problem isn’t a large as you think. My comparison was with the kind of writing (epic-legend-mythology) and the fact that scholars have been pointing to the wisdom under the surface of these stories for some time.
And Wiki says about the influence of the Hellenist Culture:
“Indian Reference
Several references in Indian literature praise the knowledge of the Yavanas or the Greeks.
The Mahabharata compliments them as “the all-knowing Yavanas” (sarvajnaa yavanaa) i.e. “The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so. The mlecchas are wedded to the creations of their own fancy.”[14] and the creators of flying machines that are generally called vimanas.[12]
The “Brihat-Samhita” of the mathematician Varahamihira says: “The Greeks, though impure, must be honored since they were trained in sciences and therein, excelled others…” .[15]
Yet another Indian text, (Gargi-Samhita), also similarly compliments the Yavanas saying: “The Yavanas are barbarians yet the science of astronomy originated with them and for this they must be revered like gods”.[16]
12. Viman Shivram Apte Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 2000 p. 386, 573.
13.
14. Mahabharata 5.19.21-23.
15. Ramayana 55.2-3.
16. Ramayana 43.12.
The ages of the epics suggest that they originated in a Sumerian source at about 1000 BC but became cultivated in India and spread into Hellenist Greece via Persia and Mesopotamia. I accept that this is not an academically sound statement from me, but then again I am not an academic. It is a subject that I have been looking into for some years, influenced by various authors from varying backgrounds.

I don’t know who Quido is (my mistake?) but many of the rules in the OT seem to be odd for us today, but it is just a different mind-set to ours and we are used to believing that our mindset is the way it is. I heard a Buddhist saying that she had been in a group in which interdependence was considered normal and that, because she was lagging behind, members of the group automatically lightened her load to such a degree that she felt herself to be a burden on the others. She became annoyed that she wasn’t self-sufficient enough to manage and even found herself blaming the group for that – which ran fully against her normal understanding of the interdependence of the whole universe.

When we are confronted with the consequent realization of a mindset which isn’t our own, it is odd and even annoying or grieving, but we have to accept that there are different ways to overcome problems. Another point is that ready made solutions which avoid conflict often fail to provide a solution. In an age where women were given in marriage, the marriage to the rapist may not be so “odd” - especially considering that the anonymity of our age wasn’t known then. The rapist had generally been someone in proximity, that is in the village, and was expected to care for the child which arose from the rape. There was also a rule that brothers had to marry their sister-in-law if their brother died.

But generally we are not talking about the moral rule, but the use of stories to carry wisdom. The rule is secondary to the inner transformation, but without it, the rule applies. Generally we can say that what is done according to rule is second best, and that is what we hear in the NT when Jesus criticizes the Pharisees.

Take Care

9

Churro; are you suggesting that by holding an atheist stance, you know the most about the Bible in this thread?

10

BTW: Bob.
I think they are perfectly compatible; the teaching of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha.
Similarly, so are the teachings of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

That said, I would have to say that what people commonly think of as Christian teachings would not be compatible with Buddha because they will commonly think of the Pauline texts, but if you only take what Jesus himself is written to have taught; then yes; they are similar.

The only difference that I find really is that Jesus was more concerned about the cohesion of societies commonwealth than Buddha was. Buddha was more concerned with the individual irregardless of the society.

11

Alright…I think my question would be in regards to whether you are open to learning more about the subject or if you have already closed the doors and drawn your conclusions regarding the Bible’s merit?

12

That’s cool. So did what I wrote to you previously change your view of the two sections you were referring to?

13

Ok Churro what you don’t understand is Stumps and Bob want you to put yourself in a hypnotic -trans before you read the bible. This is so you can become super smart and see all the benefits from all the atrocities in the bible. With this new outlook we can see that the killing of innocent children for the sins of there parents is just a wonderful life lesson. I suspect Bob and Stumps can find tremendous value in the killing of an abortion doctors or at least find passages in the bible to make it acceptable and or justified.
Sort of like the emperor (children’s story) who could see the non existent material the weavers were making his fine suit of clothes of. He was stuck in a Trans of fear. Fear of being labeled as ignorant and not fit for his position. Even though we children can see the emperor is naked. Bob just refuses to unlock his fear and use common sense. The children had nothing to fear and trusted their senses and knew a scam when they saw one.
See what we ( you and I )don’t get is how could such a infinite wisdom entity not write a instruction guide to be interpreted by all the same way and for all generations, unless their god likes to play head games with us humans he created, which in my book would make him an ahole. See Bob, and Stumps want us to keep traveling back in time too when fear and ignorance ruled, when new gods were created on a daily basis. When wars were fought because my God is better then yours. Remember, Churro from Bobs trans he’s stuck in anything good god did it. Any thing Bad well we just don’t understand and we have to get smarter, or deeper into the trans until we agree that these bad things are for our benefit.
We don’t need to slip ourselves into a trans because we don’t fear your god. I hate being called stupid when it was your God who wasn’t smart enough to write the instruction manual correct the first time for all generations. Did he not know where we were going to be in todays or tomorrows world? I would love to see Bible 7 2010 update. Not Bob’s just make it fit and if it doesn’t well you’re just too stupid. I love ya Bob and Stumps just trying to set you free from religion, it’s a wonderful feeling. They call it tough love, you need to be reprogrammed like the soldiers comming back from war who need to be taught not to be killing machines anymore. You were brainwashed using the greatest tool FEAR.
John (free thinker)

14

Churro: Well, no, the above was my own work from my own learning over the decades. See the resources in my signature for some resources that are useful.
But we’ll put that aside as either way, I have to agree with you that these sections are quite literal.
Yet, there are plenty of figurative moral and spiritual lessons in the Bible as well.
It is a mixture if both due to the trend for both to be written as lessons and instruction by many cultures of the time.
That said, my original point was that just because you don’t find anything useful to your morality in life from the Bible, doesn’t inherently mean others can’t, or are lesser for doing so.

There are lessons in the Bible, as with all religious texts, that are unique to it in impression, sense, and tone.

15

Johnski: I’m not Christian, nor is anything you asserted accurate about my stances on religion at all.

I am far more closely related to an agnostic in that I simply don’t care about the divine.
I study religious texts because I find the hearts and faiths of man throughout cultures and time facinating.

If you wanted to know my stance, then you could have just asked rather than make an erroneous assumption.

16

I’ve no malicious intention of changing the nature of your take on your claim .your claim is that the need by Christians of upholding the historical value of the bible contradicts a need for timeless spiritual piece . something to the effect .I’m not sure what is that claim and I am not sure about your following articulation in relation to your claim. . but I am working with you the best way I can. . I’m processing your claim in terms of the dialogue between the orthodox churches and the catholic churches and dialogue between the protestants and the catholic church . infact here in Africa some orthodox churches have chosen to come under the wing of the catholic church . you see orthodox priest with their different uniform holding services in catholic churches and the Vatican actually supporting these small orthodox churches financially to some extent .in fact I have seen orthodox priests holding service with catholic priests in attendance praying along . when I ask that congregation if they are Catholics or orthodox they give me the sort of answer with which you can’t be sure what they are saying . I think they are Catholics but want to keep some measure of independence. I don’t know .there is also promising dialogue between the catholic church and the rabbis . infact I am running into some very wired stuff.
At times . Jews who say they are Jews , believe in Jesus but are not Christians .

Things are not clear . if I’m an orthodox priest from one of those orthodox churches that are affiliated to the Vatican can I marry off a catholic couple ? how about funeral services ? .how about the other stuff .

The Jewish couple who are Jewish , believe in Jesus as the messiah but are not Christian , they invited me to their daughter bar mitzvah. The rabbi there wasn’t all that happy with my presence . he seems to think the occasion should be secluded to Jews only . but after some discussion he went along . we are friends now . I gave him some herbs he gave me macaroni. He gets this gourmet macaroni sent to him form abroad.

I hear there is friction in south Korea between Korean Christians and Buddhists.

Gandhi .said to the British that people would rather suffer the oppression of their own people than foreigners by which he meant the British. Nationalism? But isn’t religion wrapped up in that ? what her name that Italian lady who was going to win the election in India and become prime minter. The Hindu fanatics reaction . how about that . I think if she went head there was good probability she gets assassinated . . ,

I really don’t know much about the history of British colonialism in India … I expect family courts were most probably administered with a mixer of secular law allowing for Hinduism .

Listen I have no problem with Hindus. Some of my best friends are from that religion. what I know is that you don’t see Hindus in the west demonstrating about issues happening in India . I mean they don’t go to the their Hindu temple one day a week and then come out all excited holding demonstrations. Buddhists don’t do it either . this despite the fact there is a pockets of Koreans in the States .i have to say though it would have been refreshing to see Hindu priests accompanying Dr. Martin Luther king in his marches . I saw catholic priests and Jews. Three of them I think got killed . not sure . .

Back in the d ay when I was in the States a bunch of Cambodians refugees some three hundred of them were brought and placed in a section of this major usa city . row house after row house .a couple years later they dispersed . it didn’t work . problems with the local population. They dispersed and melted in the vast usa . . that’s interesting that they did that as a solution to the problems . others withdrew deeper into a an adverse subculture .

Another thing that I think should be factored in is those capitulation agreements that governed co existence between people of different systems of beliefs or to put in non politically correct way people of competing and rival systems of beliefs … one thing that is interesting when the capitulation treaty was revoked due for example to independence the areas were the western jurisprudence governed were more advanced . I am talking about a situation were the national jurisprudence was not western but in certain minority areas it was western jurisprudence… in those areas progress in terms of tech and standard of living was greater despite the disadvantages.

In the matter of the Jews in America. The first thing that comes to my mind is Hollywood. It seems the jews instead of acting for across the board presence the way other system of beliefs acted or are acting they just went ahead and build their own clubs and entrainment facilities and services without impacting the general population system of beliefs. From those entertainment stages were born the celebrated Jewish comedians and actors esteemed by the general population. This I think should be considered in terms of co existence in terms of inevitable friction between discordant systems of beliefs

Question how do you find the American constitution in terms of that timeless spiritual documents? What do you think of creation of another family court with varying rules along the one you have now. . what happens in the matter of dispute between couples from different system of beliefs. Banking . trade . freedom of religion , freedom of expression… I’m saying is that what’s in your mind. . a modification of the constitution?

17

Well; that would first have me believe that everyone believes the validity simply because it’s in that book.
Yet; there are several among the numbers of believers that believe in the validity of the asserted morals because they strike a chord in their heart intuitively.
They react because they feel it emotionally in their heart and conscience.

This doesn’t mean everyone reads it this way; but a great multitude do.
Not everyone that reads the Bible is reading the Bible in dronelike fashion obeying morality only because they believe it to be true simply because the book says that it’s true.

I agree; that is ridiculous.
However, I know there are plenty; such as just around here - take Bob or Lighty for example - that believe because the contents hold sections within the book that strike into their hearts and do not let go.
It resounds in some readers strongly because it is something they - as some have put it - have always felt as if they already believed some of these things but were not sure how to crystallize them into an articulated form.

That is a pure believer in my mind.
They believe because it compels their spirit without words of justification; it simply resounds true to their heart.

And what resounds true to a mans heart tells you infinite amounts about the man.
So if someone says that they believe the Bible because it just feels true, or in some fashion refers to the same concept; rather than slamming on them for being lesser - which they truly aren’t; they are simply using a different function of their humanity than the purely cerebral understanding of morality - take a moment, if you care to feel humanity much, and learn what it is being said about their emotionally core part of their base humanity in their assertion of what it is they are letting you know that they believe in.

And I say they are not lesser because they are simply using emotion.
And emotion isn’t lesser; it’s an intuitive means of arriving at the same ends; but with more meaning and relatedness to the decision.

I prefer using both; not one or the other.
I prefer to use my brain to learn more, because the more I learn; the more content I have to assess with my heart to learn if I feel that it is an empowered truth to my life.

For those forms of truth; I don’t use my reason.
Reason is useless for value in regards to life as a human.

I use my emotions to understand whether or not my life as a human values something as imperative to the ideal of what it is to be alive as a human.

So…no, I don’t think everyone that finds something useful to their life in the Bible is an adhering drone that accepts the truths because the Bible says it’s true.
I believe many people accept them as true because they feel in their hearts that it is true.

Hell, some people have heard the stories only from mouth and believe them to be true simply because of this and not because someone told them it’s true.
How stupid are we to believe everyone is by the way?

I mean; yeah; there’s allot of idiots, true, but really…all it takes is telling someone, “Hey this is true because it says it’s true so you should believe it’s true”, “Oh, OK!”
Sorry; I’m not buying that.

Most everyone I knew growing up didn’t buy that either.
I didn’t know anyone…wait; check that; I knew only one kid all growing up that just accepted the Bible because it said it was true and his parents had taught him that it was true.
He was truly uninteresting.

But everyone else that I knew growing up; if they chose to stay with the faith; chose to do so because they found it to be true because they felt it emotionally.
Those of us that walked away walked away because we didn’t feel it emotionally; it didn’t resound in our hearts.

When something doesn’t emotionally compel you; then all you have is pure reason to analyse something’s value.
Really; I can outline all of the reasons that I should wipe the human race off the face of the Earth and show it to be move valid than keeping humanity on the planet.
However, my emotional attachment let’s me know that I don’t want to do that because I feel that it’s wrong all the way down to my stomach and can taste the acid raise in my saliva when I meditate on the thought.

Are you human?
Or are you Data?

Are religious texts only a value of their logical reason, or can human beings be allowed to find meaning in life wherever they may find it and pursue their peace and happiness?

Right; and kill people, oppress people; all the other things people say about religion will no doubt follow.
Yes it will; it exists in science just as well.

People warp science to kill and oppress people just as much as people warp religion to kill and oppress people.

People will always kill and oppress people until we kill everyone or change our genetic makeup.
That’s no single idealistic construct’s fault.
That’s man’s fault.

So I hear what you are saying; I agree.
It’s stupid for someone to believe something just because it says to believe in it.
But I don’t think it’s wrong to believe in something because it compels your spirit.

18

If you are already warm; why sit by a fire place?

Do you only think of things in the sense of work and product?
Can human bask in things because they are enjoyable?
Can they attach to them because they love them?

I know my Great Grandmother In-Law simply loves reading the Book of Mormon because she says it sounds like music in her soul.
Are people only capable of production, and not enjoyment in life like this?

Can they not read a religious text because they agree and it resonates to them in a way that is enjoyable to read?

Maybe that’s it for some.
Other’s that I know of simply enjoy it.
Other’s; it’s practice for their mind and spirit.

Why should a Buddhist meditate?
Either you have Buddha nature or you don’t; why bother meditating?
This line of reason falls short of the point of meditation.

Why should the collector enjoy the painting?
Either the painting is of worth or it is not; why bother looking at it?
This line of reason falls short of the point of collecting.

I’m not real sure where the problem is.
Did you have a real pain the arse time with Christianity in some way that gives you this special disdain?

I mean; look; I don’t agree with the tenets of the faith, but I can still realize it’s value to people.
Just as easily as I can see a piece of art on the wall that I think looks like crap, but I can still realize it’s value to someone else.

19

So by your count, people can’t adhere to religious texts in a human way?
They can’t attach to it and enjoy it because it is something that feels true and is enjoyable to partake in reading and rejuvenates their spirit?

20

Shortcutting the coversation, then why ever bother to read or post in the religion section?