A Question About Religion

B

Bruzilla

Guest
I was watching Meet The Press last Sunday, and after MTP there's a church service broadcast on channel 12 down here in Jacksonville, and I was listening to the preacher while I was doing some work. He said something that caught my attention and being an agnostic I thought I would run it past some more enlightened folks and get their opinions.

The preacher was saying that people shouldn't gossip, spread rumors, or spread stories about people as this is against what God wants. But isn't the practice of religion exactly that? Isn't the story of Job?'s wife one of those stories that's really just gossip about how trashy a wife she was? It seems to me that at it's core religion is really nothing mroe than gossip/stories that are spread around telling others about good and bad things others have done. Am I off the mark here?
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Bruzilla said:
It seems to me that at it's core religion is really nothing mroe than gossip/stories that are spread around telling others about good and bad things others have done. Am I off the mark here?
You have a point. I was thinking about this when the "intelligent design" decision was handed down recently--as I see it, spirituality is about the purpose of life while biological science is about the mechanics of life.

I think there's a difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality seems to be about the individual's personal journey. Religion seems to an organized form of spirituality.

The problem you describe seems to be about orthodoxy, which is found mostly in organized religious movements but can also be found in secular movements. So why do those movements spread stories about people? I think it's a tool to punish those who deviate from orthodoxy. Job's wife seems like the equivalent of an "unperson" like in George Orwell's "1984." As I wrote before, I believe that orthodoxy and heresy are tools to control people, because they deem certain thoughts and ideas (as opposed to actions) as unacceptable.
 

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
There's a difference between bearing false witness (against the 10 Commandments) and telling about what happened to somebody for purposes of teaching a lesson. You might put your hand on a hot burner and get burned, and someone could tell their kid, "so-and-so got burned touching a hot burner, so don't YOU do it, or you'll get burned."

Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God's instruction to not look back over her shoulder at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. He specifically said that if one looked at it, one would surely die. She found out that was true.

"Religion" in general is a belief system. Some religions deal with truth, and some deal with stories and rumors. I don't know what orthodoxy has to do with rumors and gossip, but if you can twist 'em to fit your view, oh well.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Bruzilla said:
... Isn't the story of Job?'s wife one of those stories that's really just gossip about how trashy a wife she was? ...
Huh? Job's wife? The only thing I remember of Job's wife is her telling Job to go ahead and curse God and die because Job was in such misery.

Do you means Lot's wife?

As RR posted, there is a big difference between writing an account of people's lives and experiences, their faith or lack of and the results of their actions and experiences and sending a PM to someone saying, "Did you hear what so in so did?" One is a history or a lesson. The other is often malicious.

Even so, Christians are just sinners save by grace. Sinners sometimes gossip; so do Christians. The difference is Christians should know better and try to not do so.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Railroad said:
There's a difference between bearing false witness (against the 10 Commandments) and telling about what happened to somebody for purposes of teaching a lesson...
While I think you have a point, that still sounds somewhat condescending, as though the community has some sort of "in loco parentis" responsibility over its members. I generally believe that a community has no right to dictate an individual's private morality. That's one reason I oppose the idea of laws that criminalize adultery and some sexual practices.

Let's assume that Bruzilla is right that Job's wife was an adulterer. I see adultery as a private wrong, not a public wrong. In this scenario, the issue was between Job, his wife, and the other guy. If Job's community publicly censured his wife, it would seem to me to be an intrusion into Job's own private life. In a way, that would be punishing him for a wrong that he didn't commit. If the community remained silent, that would not equate to the community condoning the affair, because that type of private wrong is not for the community to approve or disapprove.
 
Last edited:

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Tonio said:
While I think you have a point, that still sounds somewhat condescending, as though the community has some sort of "in loco parentis" responsibility over its members. I generally believe that a community has no right to dictate an individual's private morality. That's one reason I oppose the idea of laws that criminalize adultery and some sexual practices.

Let's assume that Bruzilla is right that Job's wife was an adulterer. I see adultery as a private wrong, not a public wrong. In this scenario, the issue was between Job, his wife, and the other guy. If Job's community publicly censured his wife, it would seem to me to be an intrusion into Job's own private life. In a way, that would be punishing him for a wrong that he didn't commit. If the community remained silent, that would not equate to the community condoning the affair, because that type of private wrong is not for the community to approve or disapprove.
There is no where that says Job's wife was an adulterer that I know of. The only verse that uses the word adulterer in the book of Job is Job 24:15 and it does not refer to Job's wife.
Job 24:14-16
14"The murderer arises at dawn;
He kills the poor and the needy,
And at night he is as a thief.
15"The eye of the adulterer waits for the twilight,
Saying, 'No eye will see me.'
And he disguises his face.
16"In the dark they dig into houses,
They shut themselves up by day;
They do not know the light.
Job is stating that God seems to ignore sin in chapter 24. In reality, God is patient with sinners giving as much opportunity as possible for each person to agree with God and His ways.

It is not about laws made by man when it comes to Christians or Jews believing the Ten Commandments. Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments.
Exodus 20:14 14"You shall not commit adultery.
That is pretty plain.

Your point of view is typical of those that do not believe the Bible is the word of God or don't believe in God. God can't be real or the Bible can't be the word of God since I (not me, the person railing against God) don't agree with what the Bible says.

Sorry. It does not work that way. The standard is the Bible, at least for Christians.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Thanks for the clarification about Job's wife.

2ndAmendment said:
Your point of view is typical of those that do not believe the Bible is the word of God or don't believe in God. God can't be real or the Bible can't be the word of God since I (not me, the person railing against God) don't agree with what the Bible says.
I say that a community has no business telling its members what to believe. When an individual or group insists that there is "one true faith" and condemns others for following other faiths, that goes against the idea of an individual's freedom of conscience. It feels like an invasion of personal boundaries.

Besides, if people believe in God or the Bible because they have been told to or because they're afraid of being censured by their community, that doesn't feel like faith to me. If I recall correctly, Christians talk about God's grace as a physical sensation, rather than an intellectual construct. Not a simple feeling, but more of a gnostic experience that permeates the Christian's entire being. If I'm correct about that, I can't imagine that type of experience occuring simply because a person subscribes to what others tell him or her what to believe.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Thanks 2A, I was mistaking Lot for Job... like I said, I'm an agnostic. ;)

I would like to comment on Tonio's statement that a group should not be able to tell any individual what they have to believe. For a long time is this country we were mostly a God-fearing, go to church every Sunday, society in the United States. Sure there were more than a few problem children, and also for certain there were a lot of people who praised the ten commandments on Sunday and broke several of them the rest of the week, but on the whole there wasn't nearly the level of lawlessness or lack of moral standards you find today.

Now that such an effort has been put into turning people away from God, telling people that they can do whatever they want whenever they want, what has our society become? With fewer and fewer people believing in a higher being who will punish us for wrongdoing, we now find the presence or abscence of law enforcement and civil punishment being the prime cause of people committing or not committing crimes. And while God could see everything the cops can't and never will be able to.

So, while I dislike the idea of society dictating morals and actions to the public based on religious beliefs, I have to admit that the removal of these dictates seems to have been the greater wrong.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Bruzilla said:
but on the whole there wasn't nearly the level of lawlessness or lack of moral standards you find today.

Now that such an effort has been put into turning people away from God, telling people that they can do whatever they want whenever they want, what has our society become? With fewer and fewer people believing in a higher being who will punish us for wrongdoing, we now find the presence or abscence of law enforcement and civil punishment being the prime cause of people committing or not committing crimes. And while God could see everything the cops can't and never will be able to.

So, while I dislike the idea of society dictating morals and actions to the public based on religious beliefs, I have to admit that the removal of these dictates seems to have been the greater wrong.
You have a valid concern. Still, it sounds like you're saying that we have only two choices, stifling religious orthodoxy or complete lawlessness. It's possible for a person to believe in a faith other than Christianity and still lead a moral and ethical life.

In another thread, I suggested that emotionally mature adults shouldn't need the fear of punishment to live ethical lives. That's not the same as fear of consequences, such as catching an STD from unprotected sex or getting injured or killed by driving drunk. Fear of consequences is about learning what natural effect one's actions have. Fear of punishment is simply staying out of trouble, and doesn't teach adults about responsibility or making ethical judgments.

Getting back to adultery, I like the idea of couples staying faithful because they can't bear the thought of hurting each other and they believe in living up to the vows they made. That feels more honest to me than staying faithful because they're scared of going to hell.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Should you fear God? Yes, but not for those that love Him.
Matthew 10:24-39

<sup id="en-NASB-23442">24</sup>"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. <sup id="en-NASB-23443">25</sup>"It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!

<sup id="en-NASB-23444">26</sup>"Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

<sup id="en-NASB-23445">27</sup>"What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.

<sup id="en-NASB-23446">28</sup>"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

<sup id="en-NASB-23447">29</sup>"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.

<sup id="en-NASB-23448">30</sup>"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

<sup id="en-NASB-23449">31</sup>"So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.

<sup id="en-NASB-23450">32</sup>"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

<sup id="en-NASB-23451">33</sup>"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

<sup id="en-NASB-23452">34</sup>"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

<sup id="en-NASB-23453">35</sup>"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;

<sup id="en-NASB-23454">36</sup>and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

<sup id="en-NASB-23455">37</sup>"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

<sup id="en-NASB-23456">38</sup>"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

<sup id="en-NASB-23457">39</sup>"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
In recent years, churches have become more about the business of church rather than the business of God. They teach what men want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

People are lent free choice while they are alive. When they die, free choice is taken away and everyone will recognize and bow to Jesus as King of Kings whether they want to or not.
Romans 14:11-12

<sup id="en-NASB-28292">11</sup>For it is written,
"AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."

<sup id="en-NASB-28293">12</sup>So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
Of course for those that do not believe the Bible, scripture is meaningless, but at least it is here for you to read.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Tonio said:
You have a valid concern. Still, it sounds like you're saying that we have only two choices, stifling religious orthodoxy or complete lawlessness. It's possible for a person to believe in a faith other than Christianity and still lead a moral and ethical life.

In another thread, I suggested that emotionally mature adults shouldn't need the fear of punishment to live ethical lives. That's not the same as fear of consequences, such as catching an STD from unprotected sex or getting injured or killed by driving drunk. Fear of consequences is about learning what natural effect one's actions have. Fear of punishment is simply staying out of trouble, and doesn't teach adults about responsibility or making ethical judgments.

Getting back to adultery, I like the idea of couples staying faithful because they can't bear the thought of hurting each other and they believe in living up to the vows they made. That feels more honest to me than staying faithful because they're scared of going to hell.

While I agree that adults shouldn't need a fear of punishment to live ethical lives, it seems that more and more we're living in world where virtually any attrosity, obscenity, or other abhorent behavior can be excused on the basis of personal freedom, freedom of choice, civil liberties, etc. We've seen hundreds of former crimes now turned into personal choices, so how long can it be before murdering someone is considered to be freedom of speech? Sounds silly, but then again who in the early part of our century would have ever thought that you could go shopping on Sundays or have abortion on demand?

I think that on the whole we haven't shown ourselves to be people who can utilize self-determination as well as we should.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Bruzilla said:
While I agree that adults shouldn't need a fear of punishment to live ethical lives, it seems that more and more we're living in world where virtually any attrosity, obscenity, or other abhorent behavior can be excused on the basis of personal freedom, freedom of choice, civil liberties, etc. We've seen hundreds of former crimes now turned into personal choices, so how long can it be before murdering someone is considered to be freedom of speech? Sounds silly, but then again who in the early part of our century would have ever thought that you could go shopping on Sundays or have abortion on demand?

I think that on the whole we haven't shown ourselves to be people who can utilize self-determination as well as we should.
Ben Franklin said it would happen and it has.
"...I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution." --Benjamin Franklin
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Bruzilla said:
it seems that more and more we're living in world where virtually any attrosity, obscenity, or other abhorent behavior can be excused on the basis of personal freedom, freedom of choice, civil liberties, etc. We've seen hundreds of former crimes now turned into personal choices, so how long can it be before murdering someone is considered to be freedom of speech? Sounds silly, but then again who in the early part of our century would have ever thought that you could go shopping on Sundays or have abortion on demand?
Can you give some examples of "former crimes now turned into personal choices"? And how does shopping on Sundays compare to abortion on demand? I can imagine passionate pro-lifers being very upset by such a comparison, because it seems to belittle their cause.

I don't believe in the idea of "the good old days." In America, our national myth is that things were better before the '60s. I think part of comes from some fundamentalists who want to overturn Epperson v. Arkansas. I can understand their desire for an easy, convenient "cure" for America's problems.

But mostly, I think that myth comes from baby-boomers who romanticize their childhoods. That's a natural human impulse, I believe--I've noticed that people of my generation increasingly romanticize the '70s. Every era in human history has its atrocities--it seems like things are worse now because we have 24-hour cable to bring us bad news all the time. Even 30 years ago that wasn't the case.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
In looking at this issue previously I've often thought about looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, but that's not the case.

What are some laws that have been changed by societal acceptance of new norms? Abortion is the obvious, but what about Sedition laws? People do things commonly today that would have landed them in jail for sedition as recently as the 1950s. We now have a former NSA employee who's revealed highly classified material and methods for bogus reasons, who is now being hailed as a hero by the left. When was the last time that you heard of anyone being charged and convicted of statutory rape unless they're some big-time, craggy-looking, 40+-year-old pedophile? Committing acts like burning the flag were once considered disturbing the peace and you were jailed, now it's protected freedom of speech. And look at punishments. How many people get passes on crimes now that would have landed them in prision for years back in the 60s and 70s? I remember members of groups like the Black Panthers being arrested and sent to prison for doing things that today's groups like Greenpeace, PETA, or Martin Sheen cronies do to get an hour in jail and publicity mugshots for use in fundraising. Back when I was a kid, you couldn't get a divorice unless you went before a judge and you'ld better have a damn good, and documentable, case for getting divoriced. Now the only purpose of the judge is to determine who gets what and who owes what... the divorice is now a given.

As for shopping on Sundays and Abortion, they compare in the fact that if you were to have gone to most people as late as the 1970s and said "you know what's going to happen in the future? On Sundays every store you can think of is going to be open, malls are going to be open, and you're going to be able to shop to your heart's content", they would have looked at you as being as nutty as if you had said "in the future you'll be able to get an abortion for whatever reason you want, whenever you want it, and there will be no social stigma attached." When I was a kid in the 1960s, the only stores that could be legally open were drugstores, and then only for filling prescriptions or selling medicines. You also couldn't get a legal abortion except in true cases of danger to the mother. That's not romantacism, it's fact.

So... has this made the country better? Stronger? Does the ability to go out in the streets and attack your nation's policies, or betray your oaths to your government or spouse, make us a better country? Some would say that individual freedoms are what's most important and say that we are better off as a country with freedoms of abortion, divorice, no regard for religion; and that we are better off without the blanket of moral judgements that religion imposes and if a 40-year old man wants to marry a 13-yr old boy, it's a free country! (I know the last example is a bit of stretch, but who in the 1960s and 70s ever thought there would come a day when gay marriage might ever become legal?) While I think that individual freedoms are great, the reality is that with rare exception we don't exist as individuals. We exist as members of a society, and being a member of a society requires that some individual freedoms be sacrificed for the betterment of the society. The Founding Fathers understood that, and enumerated a solid set of freedoms that every American should have for a good quality of life. It seems to me that they were on the right track as many of the "freedoms" added after the fact have done little more than drag society down.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Bruzilla,
The founders assumed that the people were at least as moral as they were. They knew and stated that an imooral people could never keep their freedom.
 

SAHRAB

This is fun right?
Bruzilla said:
... Other Valid Points.....
When was the last time that you heard of anyone being charged and convicted of statutory rape unless they're some big-time, craggy-looking, 40+-year-old pedophile?
.... Other Valid Points .....


Roman Polanski (sp?) is/was heralded by the Left in Hollywood even after his conviction(?) of Statuatory Rape and Actors/Actress etc were still clamoring to be in his movies even after he fled to France (go figure) to escape the punishment phase of his crime.

and lets not forget Woody Allen
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Bruzilla said:
We exist as members of a society, and being a member of a society requires that some individual freedoms be sacrificed for the betterment of the society. The Founding Fathers understood that, and enumerated a solid set of freedoms that every American should have for a good quality of life. It seems to me that they were on the right track as many of the "freedoms" added after the fact have done little more than drag society down.
My point is that in such a free society, government can't and shouldn't act as a moral authority. Some morality is definitely societal, but some is personal, especially since America is becoming more religiously diverse every day. In a free society, religion and spirituality flourish when government doesn't try to legislate morality. I see welfare as a good example of government's allegedly good intentions actually corrupting people's sense of values and responsibility.

Personally, I see nothing morally wrong with gay marriage or with allowing stores to open on Sundays. Many people see the first as morally repugnant, and that's their right, but that's not a good enough reason to outlaw it. Homosexuality between adults poses no intrinsic threat to society. And the Sunday blue laws were based in one religion's doctrines about a sabbath day. That would be like if most Americans were Hindus and sought laws banning the sale and consumption of beef. I would hate for America to revert to, say, forced prayer in public school in the name of the common good.

SAHRAB said:
Roman Polanski (sp?) is/was heralded by the Left in Hollywood even after his conviction(?) of Statuatory Rape and Actors/Actress etc were still clamoring to be in his movies even after he fled to France (go figure) to escape the punishment phase of his crime.
Polanski is definitely a pig, and I think it's disgusting that he portrays himself as some sort of political exile. Without justifying or excusing Hollywood's opinion of him, I think they're judging his movies separately from his actions. I don't agree, at least as long as he's alive. I refuse to see a Polanski movie until after he's dead or in jail and can't profit from ticket sales. Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with the Domino's Pizza founder giving millions to Dominionist Christian movements that favor theocracy. No matter, since I like Papa John's better anyway. (Wouldn't it be great to see the Motion Picture Academy give Polanski an Oscar on the condition that he has to come to America to accept the award, with his arrest broadcast live during the ceremony? :lol:)
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Tonio said:
... Homosexuality between adults poses no intrinsic threat to society.
Of course it doesn't. :sarcasm: Procreation is a bit difficult in a homosexual relationship. And though this is a bit generalized, I have read that homosexuals tend to be less monogamous, so STDs get transmitted a bit more rapidly.
Tonio said:
And the Sunday blue laws were based in one religion's doctrines about a sabbath day. That would be like if most Americans were Hindus and sought laws banning the sale and consumption of beef.
Actually, not the sabbath. The Sabbath is Saturday.
Tonio said:
I would hate for America to revert to, say, forced prayer in public school in the name of the common good.
When prayer in school was the norm, society as a whole was far more wholesome.

Papa John's? :barf:
 
Top