The Divine Stories of Man (for men and women of faith)

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I realize this being the Religious section of this forum this has been a topic surely brought up before, but what I offer is nothing but my constructed evidence and questions to those who consider themselves persons of organized religion.
Precursor: I say none of this to offend anyone but to help them. If your religious convictions are logical then surely they can holdup to my scrutiny.
Assuming that we all believe that we do indeed exist I have a question for everyone interested:
Man has made stories since the beginning of civilization. Stories with characters, plots, details, heroes, and antagonists. When I look at Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, or Islam I know that these are the religions of fellow human beings. But are they not just stories? That question was not rhetorical. These religions, though providers of comfort, purpose and reason to many, are stories made up by men and enforced as divine revelation by men.

The beliefs of these men evolve, the stories and beliefs have changed through time. The earliest Jew were not monotheistic they were monolatristic. Meaning they did not believe in one God but that their God was the most important and the only one to be worshiped. Look at the 2nd commandment “You shall have no other gods before me” not “I am the one and only true God” this is a fact that is not often disputed by biblical historians it is simply known through the statements of the early Jews. Many people would deny this but do some research first and see.

The rules of the all knowing, they change just as civilizations change. Looking just at J,C,I The laws bestowed on us by God are altered not just by men but by God himself. Coming to us and saying that the first set of rules given to us are no longer to be followed but in its stead we shall now do this. As if the all knowing was testing out rules for us to try out. As if he hadn’t known the outcome. Granted, when Jesus spoke his law Christianity came about and God spoke again through Gabriel to Mohammad Islam came about and these are indeed separate religions but I assure you that these religions claim to worship the same God, the God who seems to feel the need to correct himself despite being all knowing.

A man has Sikh father and mother and guess what he listens to his parents is a good person and grows up to be a Sikh. Is he eternally punished for the family he was born into? Think of the millions of Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and if I am Christian do I believe that they will burn in hell forever if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior? If as a Christian I was asked at my death if Mohamed was the final and greatest prophet of God and I said know would I suffer eternally for not realizing that the Muslims were right?

This one does not disprove God’s power or might but I thought I should add that these religions all distinctly order their followers to pray. Why would God respond to individual prayers? God does not seem to be partial to prayer. In fact, I have never seem any divine intervention on this planet. If you believe that God does not intervene on Earth then that makes sense but if you think he does then why is he so partial? Damning the innocent and guilty equally does not suggest to me that prayer affect the actions on this world.

I do not deny the existence of God but to think that we as humans know “his” characteristics, unique little rules, pet peeves, and fetishes just seems naive to me. If you disagree, which we all have a right to, say so and tell me why.

Side note: I spent many years of my life as a devout Catholic, I even went through all four years of Catholic high school, and have read the Old Testament, New Testament, as well as the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and many eastern religious texts as well.
Sorry to drag on.

2

Good first post! I’m an atheist but here is some food for thought:

  1. “Just stories”. Wouldn’t it be better to think of them as “myths”? Here is what Joseph Campbell says about why myths are important:

Admittedly a different take on the issue that would normally be espoused by one of the monotheist revealed religions.

  1. Processual revelation. I don’t see why it would be surprising that rules would change. After all, the conditions of how people live change. Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian god seems to change his mind a fair amount. Starting out with one rule, then a bunch of rules, then some more rules, then a different set of rules, ect. So there would be two factors at play here: The conditions that people are living in change, so rules need to change and God changing his mind, so rules get changed. If God’s omnipotence isn’t a contradiction of free will for humans, I don’t see why it would necessitate a lack of free will in his case.

  2. Tradition. Part of being part of a culture is having and sharing certain traditions. It is the parents duty to bring children up to know these traditions so that they can partake in cultural activities as well as pass them on to their children. This grounds us, giving us a very real connection to the past, present, and future. Religion is a major vehicle for this, so doesn’t it follow that parents ought bring their children up in a particular religious faith and that children ought heed their parents? These things needn’t necessarily be thought of as truth-statements. For example, the ritual of shaking hands can’t really be said to be “true” or “false”, merely that some cultures practice it and others don’t. In American culture, it would be rude not to shake someone’s hand upon meeting them. But other cultures don’t practice that ritual, or only do so now to conform with Western standards. Is one “right” and the other “wrong”? I don’t think that can be said to be the case.

  3. As for the capricious nature of gods and their partiality, well, aren’t people capricious and partial? If the gods are like people, doesn’t it follow that they would manifest these traits? Now, I’m more inclined to say that gods are modeled after people, but I don’t think that reversing that relationship would change the soundness of that construct. Right? “Gods manifest various traits because people manifest those same traits and people modeled the gods after themselves” doesn’t give us any different information than, “People manifest various traits because the gods manifest those same traits and the gods modeled people after themselves.”

3

How do we know a story from purported history when we see it? It seems to me that the followers of each of these religions don’t treat their claims like ‘just stories’, and they never really have, so that sort of rules out that that’s all they are. A person would have to find the point at which the story went from an entertaining fiction and transformed into something you were supposed to actually believe- who was responsible for this change? When? I think your next section about how the demands of God seem to change over time actually argues against this- if the practice of religion is something that is, as Xunzian put it, processual, then it seems that religion is a story that unfolds over time, depending on events that occur in time. But that’s what history is.
I think Xunzian hit the changing revelation over time nail on the head pretty well, so I won’t add anything to that.
I am a little confused about what you say concerning Sikhs and Buddhists and whomever being condemned to hell forever because of the sad circumstance of them not hearing about Jesus, or their loyalty to the faith of their birth. You say you were a Catholic for many years, and to my knowledge, Catholicism actually doesn’t teach this. God not being bound by the sacraments, and all that. My understanding of Catholic doctrine was that only Jesus Christ can save, and it’s up to His mercy whether not a non-Christian gets into Heaven. I could be wrong. In any event, it’s certainly not a teaching of every branch of Christianity.

4

Hey Guys,
I’m glad that you took interest in post enough to comment.

Firstly to Xunzian,
Let me try and clear myself up a bit.
In terms of the changing rules of God I would say this. While I certainly see what you are saying about different times calling for different guidance, I think that such instances as the “eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth” law, known as the law of retribution in Exodus of the Old Testament, being replaced with the “turn the other cheek” instruction in the New testament is not just a change to better suit a different time. It is a contradiction to the previous law set out by God.

Tradition is exactly what I’m saying. I understand that children normally turn out like their parents in terms of belief. Why wouldn’t they? That’s how they were raised, but those same parents who make sure that their children believe as they do also think that non followers will indeed suffer the wrath of eternal fury.
“Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” - 2:191 No I didn’t quote an old pirate motto. This is the Koran.
“Say to the unbelievers: 'you shall be overthrown and driven into Hell - an evil resting place!” The Imrans (Koran)
“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father . . . Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and thy daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matt. 10:33-36 (NT)
I am not saying personally whether it is right or wrong simply that damnation does exist for persons outside certain religions.

And as far as the characterization of God I would say that being all knowledgeable and powerful would make such a being above quirky characteristics

Uccisore,
You are definitely right to point out that not all sects of Christianity believe the same thing about accepting Jesus as the messiah. But as far as Catholic teaching dictates yes Jesus is the final decider and he cannot deem you worthy for heaven without first accepting him into your soul.
I was incorrect if I insinuated that these religions were originally intended to be stories that is certainly not the case you are right, however my point is these myths, as Xunzian said, are just that.
Keep the comments coming if you so please.
Thanks guys

5

I might suggest that you are approaching the relationship between “all-knowing and all-powerful” and the particulars of the revelation backwards. I think it would make more sense to look and see what a revealed god is like within the confines of the revelation and then see how vague terms like “all-knowing and all-powerful” apply. I mean, you think a god who tells one of his followers to kill their son and then says, “psych!” at the last moment isn’t quirky? Or what about when he tortures a faithful follower to win a bet? Or what about when he sends his ghost to impregnate a woman with himself and then sacrifices his son who is himself so that he won’t eternally damn people? Or what about when he selects prophets to perfectly transmit his message but the message keeps getting corrupted so he selects one final prophet and says, “Done. This message totally can’t get messed up, unlike every other message I’ve tried.” I think “quirky” would be a very tactful description of such a being.

Now, that might be contradictory to what people want in a god, but that isn’t an argument against any particular god. Which is also something worth considering: the gods in all cultures are quirky like this. So I’m not even sure it isn’t what people want in their gods.

As for damnation as a vehicle for in-group/out-group dynamics, I’d agree with that. But cultures have that with or without damnation, so I’m not sure what that actually amounts to. It certainly isn’t novel. I’d actually argue it is slightly more inclusive. After all, if members of the out-group are damned, normally they can still be saved through conversion and become a member of the in-group. If you think of them as separate beings entirely (for example, the Nords thought other people were elves and dwarves, for a long time there was a debate as to whether Native Americans and Africans had souls) they can’t ever be included in your group. And if they are seen as barbarians, there is very little likelihood that they will even be sufficiently encultured to really belong (the Greeks and the Chinese would be a good example of this). Now, it is still an in-group/out-group distinction so it can still lead to all sorts of problems, sure. Granted, it isn’t a panacea. American history clearly demonstrates that Christians don’t mind having Christian slaves as long as the slaves belong to an out-group deemed more important. But I still think religion offers a means to bridge some of these gaps (while leaving other gaps unbridged, make no mistake).

6

I am saying that this concept of God is indeed quirky and yet he is also supposed to be all knowledgeable and powerful (I am speaking about monotheistic religions only here). That is my point. Such specific characteristics exist in individual men and I am stating that this is rather ridiculous to claim perfect benevolence would be so oddly partial.

I hope I have cleared myself up a bit.

7

I’m not sure your logic in this case is sound.

The Judeo-Christian tradition defines God as “perfect”, with attributes such as “good” and “benevolent”, ect. So what God does is perfect, as a matter of definition. Christianity starts and ends with God as he has been revealed, ditto with Islam. If you are using a defintion of “perfect” that doesn’t fit God, then your defintion of “perfect” is what is flawed and not God.

Now, I’m sympathetic to what you are saying because, like you, my definition of things like “perfect”, “good”, and “benevolent” are different from a Christian’s, at least in this context, but since I am not a Christian that is to be expected. It is a different challenge that we face. A Christian has to figure out why what God did to Job, for example, is good. I can look at it and say, “That is horrible!” But our frames of reference are different on the matter.

So, within the tradition, I don’t think your objection holds. Outside of the tradition, I do think it holds. So the question becomes: which one of these is correct? Or are both correct in their context?

8

Perhaps what you say is true, but I would think that Christian and Islamic God being universal, as in a god made for all humanity rather than a certain individualistic group, would indeed be separate from tradition. Tradition being brought about by culture, something defined by belonging to a distinct society rather than all people. My argument is that perfection would not bring about such distinct qualities and would not follow tradition and culture. But you are right Xunzian to say that if someone still thinks it can well then my objection indeed does not hold.

and just so you know it is etc.

9

If the gods are made by men, well, the argument is already over, isn’t it? :wink: If the gods revealed themselves at a particular place and time and then said, “pass it on”, why wouldn’t it be culturally isolated? At least until said culture found a way to pass it on to everybody, hopefully something good and violent, right :laughing:

And thanks for the correction. It feels odd typing too letters in a row on the top row. It is always up, down, up, down. I got sloppy somewhere along the way. My HS latin teacher would be most displeased . . .

10

[b]lance[/i]

We know Catholics don’t pronounce hell on people who never heard of Jesus, or who died before He was born on Earth. Is it as you say that Jesus is a decider, or is it as you also say that He ‘cannot’ let a person into Heaven if they don’t meet a legal criteria? God is sovereign, right?
As to the assertion that religious stories are all myths (by which you seem to imply they aren’t true)- at this point all I can do is say I disagree. At some point, one or the other of us is going to have to venture an argument for our view, or the conversation will stagnate. Are you up to it, or shall I?

11

Please feel free to Uccisore.
But once again in terms of Jesus being the decider. Yes, Catholicism does not state that people who have never heard of Christ are not damned to Hell automatically. However Jesus is the decider of our fate and like I had stated previous, through him and him alone is heaven acheivable.

“No man comes to the father except through me and if he tries to he is but a thief and a liar.” John 14:6
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9
“I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. Whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:7, 9

The official stance is that whether or not we as individuals have heard or encountered Christ in our earthly lives, we will all be confronted by him alone before any judgment is made. So you are correct, Uccisore, in saying that people who have not encountered or heard of Christ while living are not automatically damned to Hell.

But onto the more pertinent issue.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that being myth does not inherently disprove truth about the contents validity on the divine. And I agree that such a statement would not be sufficient evidence in-and-of-itself to be an argument. At a basic level they are stories, surely I think that is we all can agree on. But I am trying to prove why they are just stories. Not God’s word. Of course it is not always so easy to debunk the worlds largest religions in a one page thread (But you still have to speak your mind right?) so for times sake I will focus specifically on Christianity in this post.

As a follower of this religion, one would not consider these works just stories but something more. The Word of God. God’s infallible word. Man’s words are not infallible, but God’s are.
I will give the simplest example I can about how this God does not know everything. No interpretable bit about the sun revolving around the Earth or geological mishaps but something quite clear. Math.

“He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.” - 1 Kings 7:23-26
If you actually try and go through with this equation you will realize that the bath can hold 1056 cubic feet (1056 to be exact). Clearly not enough water for 2000 baths. “God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things” - 1 John 3:20. That does not follow. Well how about this.

According to God, God does not change. “…the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17 Makes sense being perfect and all.
I would like to point out one example of an obvious inconsistency. I will not claim that God’s violence upon the innocent as well guilty makes him not God, not in this point anyways, but It does seem a bit hypocritical, not to mention ungodly, when he clearly holds a contradicts himself.

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” 1 Samuel 15:3
Apparently the infants, women and men all need not be spared the sword.

And here is Jesus, also known as God to many, talking to his disciples.

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike." Matt 5: 43-45

This seems rather do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do… unless I tell you it is wrong to do as I say. But yet we are to believe that God does not change over time.

Its hard not to come off as a jackass when talking about such issues (or maybe it is just me) and for that I apologize, but I certainly hope you all can look past that.

Anyways thank you for reading.