A good example of why the religious suck

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

How is heaven after death an example of being compromised by greed? It's a foundational belief in many religions.

Which of their original basis and aims are still viable?

If we can't judge beliefs that appear to be harmful to living life and to the continued existence of life on this planet, it would seem you are suggesting we cannot judge anything. Did you not read the negative psychological effects religion can have that I suggested? Did you not read how it may have affected our relationship with nature and world?

You didn't address any of my points directly at all. Saying "who am I to judge" seems like the ultimate cop-out. We all judge things all the time. Seems more like you don't want to judge something that is near and dear to some because you don't want to offend. But judging is certainly what humans do, and we do it every day.

Sure we judge everyday, but it doesn't make it right. The thing is if some church or somebody is doing something against man and nature, sure we condemn and try to stop that behaviour. To me tearing down a religion will just result in another religion or facsimile such as communism which won't be any better. It's like government, some form of it will always be around and sure it's corrupt but there are the odd honest politicians too.

As for heaven after death being compromised by greed. It's a promise made by the church in order to make us follow them. We follow them and they get more power. As for it being a foundational belief, I don't think the Jews believe in it. It was an invention for the uneducated Christians.
More power for the church means more money etc. I'm not saying life after death doesn't exist, it's just that nobody that I know of has died and reported back to me that it does.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You can't remove them from their times. In most cases they were being commissioned to paint/create religious works of art. Guess why that might be? Churches had a lot of money and power in those days and most people were Christians in Europe. We don't know what they would have painted/designed had different patrons or institutions hired them instead. Should we credit Christianity for the great Muslim artists or Asian artists of the same period? I notice you don't trot out anybody not from the Western European heritage and tradition.

As well it can be suggested the Christianity was more widespread back then and being an atheist was less of an option, especially if you wanted to retain credibility, the appearance of sanity, respect, etc. It was institutionally empowered.

I would suggest that if they were great Christians they would not have been artists at all but would have been priests/monks instead.

Crediting Christianity for their artistic talent is ridiculous. Credit the artists.

For the record I love gothic architecture.

So you trot out a bunch of maybes, what-ifs, and could-haves. Maybe if they had have been Atheists they might have not painted at all. Maybe if they had have been Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers they might have built temples in his honour. It doesn't matter. None of these people were doomed to mediocrity, as your original post insinuates.

No-one is being removed from their times; they are being admired specifically within them. Many of these people were inspired by their religion to create and learn. Galileo was deeply religious. The same with many great men and women of other cultures that followed another religion that was, in the end, still a religion. Ovid's Metamorphoses, Al-Asma'i, Al-Batanni, Angkor Wat, the Pyramids, Zigurrats. I could name a thousand different things inspired by religions, or done by religious men, all over the world. It doesn't change anything.

Religion inspired these remarkable feats, whether you like it or not, and whether you want to imagine what "could have been" if they weren't religious or not. To ignore everything that's been done in the name of religion and inspired BY religion is just plain ignorant on your part. And who are you to decide what a great Christian is, or what a great religious person of ANY creed is? Religion is remarkably personal.

[Finny61]

Why am I not surprised this thread (and multiple more) now suddenly exist in an attempt to take the focus of some stupid athiests and redirect to some stupid religious people. Weak sauce.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher, certainly wasn't anything mediocre or lacking in ambition. Copernicus first presented his system of the planets circling the sun inside the Vatican, at the behest of the Pope! Bacon, Descartes, Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton

I've read Aquinas and he's not so great IMO compared to many other philosophers I've read. In fact the Christian philosophers outside of Kierkegaard that I've read paled in comparison to the rest.

The way you present the Copernicus, Church, heliocentric controversy is certainly a flattering one to the Church. The Church most definitely persecuted the idea harshly, perhaps you should read up on Galileo more closely who came after Copernicus and the Galileo affair. That you have the audacity to praise Christianity for the work of scientists who presented ideas that the Church harshly persecuted is bewildering. Where did you learn that history?

Are you really calling on Bacon, Kepler and Newton to support your argument? Many of these examples of yours did not thrive because of the Church or the Bible but because of their intellect and that application of it. That some of them professed to be Christian is not that surprising, you can't expect all scientists and philosophers to have been atheists through the entirety of history would you?

Really bewildering response.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Galileo was deeply religious.

And persecuted by the Church for his scientific beliefs?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Religion inspired these remarkable feats, whether you like it or not, and whether you want to imagine what "could have been" if they weren't religious or not. To ignore everything that's been done in the name of religion and inspired BY religion is just plain ignorant on your part. And who are you to decide what a great Christian is, or what a great religious person of ANY creed is? Religion is remarkably personal.

You seem to ignore the distinction between artistic talent being hired to create something in a religious time and "religious inspiration". Art will take more of a religious form in more religious times. That does not mean necessarily mean God or the Bible inspired these artists to make better works than they would have in a more secular time. I think ignoring that distinction is ignorant if you want to start throwing that term around.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

None of these people were doomed to mediocrity, as your original post insinuates.

Did I say doomed? I believe I suggested the Bible encourages mediocrity and that is partially based on my own reading it and my own experiences growing up in Christianity. Quite a distinction, you made a leap there. My actual quote...

"I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition"

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I've read Aquinas and he's not so great IMO compared to many other philosophers I've read. In fact the Christian philosophers outside of Kierkegaard that I've read paled in comparison to the rest.

The way you present the Copernicus, Church, heliocentric controversy is certainly a flattering one to the Church. The Church most definitely persecuted the idea harshly, perhaps you should read up on Galileo more closely who came after Copernicus and the Galileo affair. That you have the audacity to praise Christianity for the work of scientists who presented ideas that the Church harshly persecuted is bewildering. Where did you learn that history?

Are you really calling on Bacon, Kepler and Newton to support your argument? Many of these examples of yours did not thrive because of the Church or the Bible but because of their intellect and that application of it. That some of them professed to be Christian is not that surprising, you can't expect all scientists and philosophers to have been atheists through the entirety of history would you?

Really bewildering response.

Sigh. Let me explain this for you again.

You state that religion breeds and encourages mediocrity and limits ambition.

I list a number of people who are Christian throughout history that have created and discovered either because they were inspired by their religion, or did it in the name of their religion in some capacity. I use Christian examples because, while you say you give examples of why religion is a destructive influence on life, you do nothing but give Christian examples in turn.

I really don't care if Aquinas is any better than another religious philosopher. He contributed a great deal to our culture and society while being a deeply religious man, the same as many others. He was one example of a religious man that was not mediocre nor limited in ambition.

There is no debating that the Christian Church did a lot of terrible things. But I am speaking of religion, in its entirety, and what it has inspired people all over the world, throughout history, to do. It doesn't matter in the context of this debate whether the Church didn't approve of what Galileo said -- what is important is that a deeply religious man like Galileo was inspired to discover great things IN THE NAME OF GOD.

You said religion encouraged mediocrity and limited a person's ambition, remember? Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Einstein -- these men were religious men, yet were not mediocre nor limited in ambition, which is what you said religion did. I presented the wide-range of human history that shows that it doesn't and that it didn't.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Sigh. Let me explain this for you again.

You state that religion breeds mediocrity and limits ambition.

I list a number of people who are Christian throughout history that have created and discovered either because they were inspired by their religion, or did it in the name of their religion in some capacity. I use Christian examples because, while you say you give examples of why religion is a destructive influence on life, you do nothing but give Christian examples in turn.

I did not use the words breed or doomed as you suggest. Try reading a bit closer before you jump to conclusions. My actual wording was

"I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition"

And even if I accepted all your examples as solid ones, that there are examples of greatness throughout Christian history does nothing to dispute my claim that the Bible encourages mediocrity. Exceptions do not disprove generalizations.

You seem to think I was saying the Bible causes mediocrity. Not at all what I was saying.

Even if it was what I was saying you sure picked some questionable examples IMO and you don't appear to be considering how their times had an effect on what kind of work they could be employed for as artists or how growing up in an almost wholly Christian nation encourages one to keep that view.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Did I say doomed? I believe I suggested the Bible encourages mediocrity and that is partially based on my own reading it and my own experiences growing up in Christianity. Quite a distinction, you made a leap there. My actual quote...

"I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition"

Ok. And I showed you examples of why it doesn't.

You also follow by saying those are examples of why religion is a destructive influence to life. I showed how that, too, isn't true, with examples.

Let's clarify, as well: are we talking about Christianity, or are we talking about religion?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You seem to ignore the distinction between artistic talent being hired to create something in a religious time and "religious inspiration". Art will take more of a religious form in more religious times. That does not mean necessarily mean God or the Bible inspired these artists to make better works than they would have in a more secular time. I think ignoring that distinction is ignorant if you want to start throwing that term around.

Obviously if a polymath were born today similar to Copernicus, and he were Atheist, and any other number of things, he may still be a great man discovering great things inspired by some other reason. Who knows? I'm not saying people discovered great things only because of the existence of God and they were somehow better for it. Do you honestly believe I think God or the Bible had some type of magical power that made these men create greater pieces or make greater findings? And I'm confused by what you say in regards to the distinction between artists being hired to create something in a religious time and "religious inspiration." Every artist has a muse. Is it beyond belief that men living in deeply religious times might find their muse in -- gasp -- religion?

What I am saying, is that men, like Copernicus, were often inspired by their religious beliefs. God, or their belief in a God, was often their muse. Religious times or not religious times, their work was often inspired by their faith.

Originally Posted by Copernicus

My goal is to find the truth in God's majestic creation.

His belief in God and his adherence to a faith did not stunt him. It fed him, it became one with his scientific explorations. In this case, as in many others, it helped feed a man to create, not destroy. Who knows? If Copernicus were not religious, he may never have wanted to find the truth of what he deemed "God's majestic creation." Maybe he'd have wanted to be a tanner. Or maybe he'd have been an Atheist astronomer instead. But that doesn't matter, because it never was.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

That reads like a list of reasons (faulty as they are) as to why Christianity is a destructive influence, not religion. I won't go into depth and refute everything you said, largely because it's all been said before on here, both of us will argue until our fingers fall off, and nothing much will be settled.

What I will say, however, concerns the point you mention about the Bible (and what I assume you to truly mean -- religion) encouraging mediocrity and hampering ambition. This is straight-up bologna. You wouldn't be where you are today if it weren't for the exceptional abilities of religious men and women before you. Some of the greatest artistic expressions of our western heritage are existent because of religion. Do you believe Michaelangelo aspired to mediocrity? Leonardo (who also happened to be a groundbreaking scientist)? Are you familiar with the work of John Milton? Dante? Machiavelli? How about Gothic architecture?

How about science? The science of today stands on the shoulders of those giants in science of the past who tried to explain the world in natural terms; not to prove that God didn't exist, but to further add to His glory. And I quote:



Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher, certainly wasn't anything mediocre or lacking in ambition. Copernicus first presented his system of the planets circling the sun inside the Vatican, at the behest of the Pope! Bacon, Descartes, Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton:



Even Albert damn-freaking Einstein was a religious man:



I won't even mention the contributions of those who followed the creeds of other religions and explored and created in the name of God or the gods. Homer, the literature-loving kings of the Mughal Empire, Ghandi, the fusion of art styles in Andalusia. . . . The entire groundwork of our Western Heritage, and the rest of the world, was laid out in the name of religion. Dismissing it as merely something that makes fellows aspire to mediocrity is not just plain wrong, it's ridiculous. Where we stand today is testament to the error of that statement.

I think a fair debate would be that if there was no religion we would be colonizing space right now. I know you wouldn't agree but IMHO religion has held back the advances of humanity.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

So you trot out a bunch of maybes, what-ifs, and could-haves. Maybe if they had have been Atheists they might have not painted at all. Maybe if they had have been Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers they might have built temples in his honour. It doesn't matter. None of these people were doomed to mediocrity, as your original post insinuates.

No-one is being removed from their times; they are being admired specifically within them. Many of these people were inspired by their religion to create and learn. Galileo was deeply religious. The same with many great men and women of other cultures that followed another religion that was, in the end, still a religion. Ovid's Metamorphoses, Al-Asma'i, Al-Batanni, Angkor Wat, the Pyramids, Zigurrats. I could name a thousand different things inspired by religions, or done by religious men, all over the world. It doesn't change anything.

Religion inspired these remarkable feats, whether you like it or not, and whether you want to imagine what "could have been" if they weren't religious or not. To ignore everything that's been done in the name of religion and inspired BY religion is just plain ignorant on your part. And who are you to decide what a great Christian is, or what a great religious person of ANY creed is? Religion is remarkably personal.

Perhaps these greats you are speaking of were just playing the game and that game is sucking up to the powers that be. Religion was the power and power was held by point of sword and were largely the only people who had the ability to even record history. I know you have heard of the term winners write history. Can I prove my thoughts? of course not, but with the track record of religion I dont put it past them.

[photon]

I think it's a difficult thing to judge, people are a product of their time, so just because someone was religious during a time when not being so would have been suicide for their career/livelihood makes it difficult to tell.

Newton also was an alchemist, he rejected the trinity and the idea of a devil and literal demons. He had to be careful though because these views were heretical (which was a crime) and would have lost everything.

Einstein was not religious in the sense most people would mean, more of a pantheist than anything else.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

My only point being that determining the actual religious beliefs of some of these people might be more difficult than one would think given the society they were in. Heck people can't even get Obama's professed religion straight, and who knows what he really believes since to be where he is he pretty much has to appear Christian.

[Day Tripper]

Einstein was not at all religious in the traditional sense. He said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

So when he said "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind", he was referring to this sense of admiration which most scientists share.

I would say that Tesla is the first famous religious scientist to come to mind in more recent times, though he was quite private and didn't say much about it.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by photon

I think it's a difficult thing to judge, people are a product of their time, so just because someone was religious during a time when not being so would have been suicide for their career/livelihood makes it difficult to tell.

Newton also was an alchemist, he rejected the trinity and the idea of a devil and literal demons. He had to be careful though because these views were heretical (which was a crime) and would have lost everything.

Einstein was not religious in the sense most people would mean, more of a pantheist than anything else.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

My only point being that determining the actual religious beliefs of some of these people might be more difficult than one would think given the society they were in. Heck people can't even get Obama's professed religion straight, and who knows what he really believes since to be where he is he pretty much has to appear Christian.

When I speak of religion, I don't mean specifically Christianity, or Islam, or any other monotheistic, or polytheistic, religion. I mean it in its loosest definition. A set of beliefs concerning the nature, meaning, and/or creation of the universe, often associated with a spiritual being or beings, or spiritual elements such as the soul.

Jainism is a religion, but it isn't remotely Judeo-Christian. It's still religious, however, but not in whatever most people (Westerners?) might believe. There are many ways to be a religious person, and because Newton rejected the existence of demons or the trinity, it doesn't mean he wasn't a deeply religious man. I would certainly believe it more likely, given his life and circumstances, that he was religious. Luther rejected a lot of stuff too. Calvin even more so.

It is also extremely hard for us to think of people from Newton's time and earlier because of the perceptions of the nowaday world. The world they lived in, dominated by religion and religious men as it was, is a hard thing for us to picture.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You can't remove them from their times...

That is good advice, and yet you did precisely the same thing only a few posts back with your analysis of the Bible:

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some would argue that religions that put forward the concept of heaven are in fact devaluing this life in favour of an afterlife that may turn out to be a fantasy/myth. If I base my life on the belief that I am doing certain things to get into heaven there's a chance I may not make the most of THIS life and there's a chance that this life is the only life I have.

I am a Christian who has rejected the idea of a literal heaven/hell afterlife out of recognition that this life and the present are in actual fact the substance of "true religion" (Jas 1:21–27). However, the notion of an afterlife really needs to be situated within its cultural and historical context. When Jesus spoke of heaven and hell (which were not universally accepted ideas within Judaism at the time), his purpose was not to propagate new doctrine or to devalue human life. In almost every instance, his teachings were metaphoric or hyperbolic and had to do with right conduct and good behaviour in the present. If you have a Bible, I encourage you to embark on your own study of the four Gospels with the following questions in mind: When Jesus speaks about heaven or hell, what is the intent behind his teaching? To whom is his teaching addressed, and why?

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

There are many passages in the Bible that suggest striving for great things is not what you should be doing. The meek shall inherit the earth, the last will be first, etc. The Bible at times legitimizes servitude. I think several things about the Bible encourage mediocrity and hamper ambition to do anything great on this earth.

Again, one needs to be careful to consider the context of such teachings. By and large, the teachings of Jesus (both examples you provided were from his Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5) were not addressed to a global audience, and yet they have been interpreted as such and several hundreds of years after the fact. It needs to be noted that the people with whom Jesus lived and who he taught were mostly poor, destitute, persecuted and oppressed. They were frequently manipulated by the rich and abused by the government and the prevailing religious aristrocracy. In such a context, any sort of "ambition" was a virtual impossibility and a practically meaningless message to deliver. In such a context, Jesus words effectively served to provide comfort and meaning to groups of people who had little to no hope. Until one clearly understands this, then the message of the Gospel and most of the Bible will always appear artificial and counter-effective.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some would also argue that the Biblical model of humans being granted dominion over the beasts/land has in part led to a destructive and exploitive relationship with nature.

Without a doubt. Francis Bacon's programme of progress and development was legitimated by his own reading of Gen 1:28. The text actually instructs that mankind ought to "dominate" (or rape?) nature, but again, without a clear historical context fro when this was written is bound to lead to the wrong conclusions. Life in the ancient world was brutal. The writers and collectors of Scripture were agrarian and were completely vulnerable to the cruel and seldom predictable whims of nature. The instruction to subdue and to work the earth was not part of some pre-Roman age of industrialization. With limited means, the people could only "subdue" nature inasmuch as they were able to grow enough food that they might not starve.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some would also argue that the belief in the imminent return of Christ lessens any responsibility for leaving the Earth in good shape for future generations. If you believe Christ may return in your lifetime you aren't going to prioritize sustainability, leaving the Earth in good shape for your children, for their children, for 100 generations from now. Many Christians have thought they were living in the endtimes for the last thousand years. You can find a multitude of Christian literature on our current times being the "end times."

This too, is a misappropriation by Christians of ancient apocalyptic literature, whose purpose was not so much to pacify people into a naval-gazing stupor, but rather to ensure good behaviour and the production of well being as a guard against impending disaster. Apocalyptic literature was all produced amid periods of tremendous persecution and religious and cultural oppression; its message is usually otherworldly in large part because people had little hope in their present circumstances, and really did have nothing to look forward to. I agree, apocalypticism is one of the most dangerous ideological forces imaginable, and it is peculiar that in 20th century America it persists—perhaps for the first time ever amid a period of social progress and safety! But by the same token, these "messages" from the Bible should always first and foremost be understood within their given context.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Why am I not surprised this thread (and multiple more) now suddenly exist in an attempt to take the focus of some stupid athiests and redirect to some stupid religious people. Weak sauce.

lol you really think that?

Amazing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

When I speak of religion, I don't mean specifically Christianity, or Islam, or any other monotheistic, or polytheistic, religion. I mean it in its loosest definition. A set of beliefs concerning the nature, meaning, and/or creation of the universe, often associated with a spiritual being or beings, or spiritual elements such as the soul.

Well by that definition everyone is religious!

I see what you mean, I'm just prickly about some groups of Christians co-opting everyone they can lay their hands on to run an appeal to authority with to support their worldview.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by photon

Well by that definition everyone is religious!

I see what you mean, I'm just prickly about some groups of Christians co-opting everyone they can lay their hands on to run an appeal to authority with to support their worldview.

Well, I'm agnostic, so no threat of that from me!