Do religious people really believe their texts are the word of God?

[crashtestdummy]

Sounds like Deism.

It has some roots there, but to call it simply deist is to dismiss a lot of is cultural heritage. It is perhaps an ontology that overlaps, but they maintain a ritual life and cultural language that remains firmly rooted in a traditional religion. They still talk about Jesus, Muhammad, Moshe, Buddha, etc but understand these figures as metaphorical stand-ins for another Truth.

 

[alzan]

Is this an admission that once you create a notion that people are subject to error and that only God is perfect, it doesn't really matter if the error in text is the result of having been written not by God but by men, or interpreted not by folk perfect in their capacity to understand what may have been perfectly written? Once people are involved either in writing what they think God is about, or trying to understand what He actually said He's about, the results, by that principle must be completely unreliable and equally indistinguishable.

Faith is belief without certainty. Folk without faith claim certainty in its absence. Faith isn't a belief but an attitude, a state of grace, surrender, and peace. To have faith is to love. The experience of love is all the proof the faithful need.

And if love is the Holy Spirit, then one can experience God whether one believes in Him or not, it would seem to me.

Spiritually, yes. Though the topic seems to be more about organized religion and it's adherents; one can be religious without being spiritual and vice versa.

It has some roots there, but to call it simply deist is to dismiss a lot of is cultural heritage. It is perhaps an ontology that overlaps, but they maintain a ritual life and cultural language that remains firmly rooted in a traditional religion. They still talk about Jesus, Muhammad, Moshe, Buddha, etc. but understand these figures as metaphorical stand-ins for another Truth.

exactly why I said like and not is.

 

[Moonbeam]

Strawman.

Moonbeam made no indication that he was speaking about literalists.

My statement was my opinion of the consequences of what happens when folk answer the OP's question with a yes, so I was speaking about literalists. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Retro Rob]

My statement was my opinion of the consequences of what happens when folk answer the OP's question with a yes, so I was speaking about literalists. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Thanks for the clarification, but my point still remains that those who take the completely opposite view (that the Bible is completely wrong) must admit that the entire Bible is right once its shown that one single word is right.

Still doesn't make it anymore logical.

 

[MongGrel]

We already knew L Ron Hubbard was falso and looney! Tell us something new!! Scientology has never been considered a main stream religion!!

Part of my point was it's more or less a modern version of the same ole thing, more or less.

Just me maybe.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm obviously generalizing a bit here, but most of those who view things the way I describe above don't really view the Devine as a judgmental or an authority figure. For them, god simply is. Think John Muir, as an example.



Your response reminds me of a conversation I had with ay young evangelical a few years ago. I asked him if he found his religious practice rewarding. For most liberal religious folk, that is the whole point of religious practice, to create additional meaning in ones life. This person, however, looked at me like I had two heads. "I suppose I have some relief in knowing I'm saved, but I really don't understand why your question is relevant.". For him, God's law was there to be obeyed, not to make you feel better. Any overlap between the two was mere coincidence. Of course, there is an infinite spectrum between those two views, but it helps to understand the opposite corners.

My view is pretty much the same -- God's laws aren't there to make one "feel good", but that isn't to say that you cannot be emotionally satisfied with your religion (as that's an important part of it), but it shouldn't be driven primarily by emotion.

Things that feel good don't make them true, or necessarily good for you.

 

[JD50]

Thanks for the clarification, but my point still remains that those who take the completely opposite view (that the Bible is completely wrong) must admit that the entire Bible is right once its shown that one single word is right.

Still doesn't make it anymore logical.

Except there are actual people that think the bible is the word of god. There is no one that says every word of the bible is wrong. Anyways that is not the opposite view. The opposite view of those that think the bible is the literal word of god would be someone like myself that doesn't believe that the bible is the literal word of god.

If someone claims that the bible is the literal word of an all knowing being then yes, finding one wrong thing in the bible completely invalidates their claim.

 

[alzan]

Your response reminds me of a conversation I had with ay young evangelical a few years ago. I asked him if he found his religious practice rewarding. For most liberal religious folk, that is the whole point of religious practice, to create additional meaning in ones life. This person, however, looked at me like I had two heads. "I suppose I have some relief in knowing I'm saved, but I really don't understand why your question is relevant.". For him, God's law was there to be obeyed, not to make you feel better. Any overlap between the two was mere coincidence. Of course, there is an infinite spectrum between those two views, but it helps to understand the opposite corners.

How sad. To have had that disservice done to him. It's that kind of thinking that has driven and is driving good people away from organized religion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

My view is pretty much the same -- God's laws aren't there to make one "feel good", but that isn't to say that you cannot be emotionally satisfied with your religion (as that's an important part of it), but it shouldn't be driven primarily by emotion.

Things that feel good don't make them true, or necessarily good for you.

I do agree with you here. My exwife went to different churches and services to see which one she liked most. I asked her what that matters, she should be searching for the one that would be the closest to what is god's real word and teachings if she honestly wanted to learn and worship, not which one had the newer upbeat songs and didn't hammer you over the head with sin too hard making it easier to live with.

So I understand completely how if god says someone is to die, that would automatically make it "right". He is god, beyond our thinking. That being said, if it is obvious that he isn't real, than it sounds an awful a lot like evil. And the christian defending god sounds similar to how I imagine the old Nazi soldier might sound while defending Adolf Hitler's actions had they won WWII and been in power at this time in history.

In the end I think people need to use their own moral compass and beliefs when looking at such things. My compass points to the evil direction when talking about child killing, especially in the thousands or even millions. If your moral compass would tend to agree under normal circumstances, then great. If your moral compass points towards 'rightous' when talking about your god killing children, then I guess at least form a human perspective, that says something about your god.

 

[crashtestdummy]

How sad. To have had that disservice done to him. It's that kind of thinking that has driven and is driving good people away from organized religion.

That was the kind of assumption that I had made for some time--that the more absolute versions of religion would chase people away--but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least with Protestant Christianity. While overall attendance is certainly in decline, it is the more conservative sects that are doing better, while the more liberal ones are struggling.

I think part of this divide is that the non-religious and the liberal religious have a lot more in common than the liberal and conservative religious do. Additionally, those that are raised with more open-minded parents are more likely to change religion or become non-religious in their lifetime.

Judaism is its own interesting case. Here, it is the conservatives (actually the moderates here) that are struggling the most (and it's clearly evident--walk into any conservative shul, and you'll notice almost everyone is over 50), while the reform and orthodox movements are doing well.

It's an odd mix, here. The orthodox have a lot more children, which helps maintain their ranks despite few conversions from other sects. While reform Judaism loses the most members to secularism and intermarriage, they also pick up a lot of conservative Judaism's discontents.

 

[Retro Rob]

In the end I think people need to use their own moral compass and beliefs when looking at such things. My compass points to the evil direction when talking about child killing, especially in the thousands or even millions. If your moral compass would tend to agree under normal circumstances, then great. If your moral compass points towards 'rightous' when talking about your god killing children, then I guess at least form a human perspective, that says something about your god.

This is completely illogical because you cannot just pick and choose when your own moral compass comes into play. Why? Because what's right to one person, could be wrong to another. So in the end, no one is 'right' about God's actions -- it's all relative.

This is essentially what you're saying. We need some sort of moral standard in order to make rational conclusions about things, or there can logically be no 'right' or 'wrong' in the world.

 

[Retro Rob]

That was the kind of assumption that I had made for some time--that the more absolute versions of religion would chase people away--but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least with Protestant Christianity. While overall attendance is certainly in decline, it is the more conservative sects that are doing better, while the more liberal ones are struggling.

I just think that this is due to the fact that people are more attracted to either (1) tradition, or (2) what they see as true teachings and not just temporary, emotional satisfaction, in my opinion.

I admittedly don't know much about liberal Churches, but it seems as if they simply gloss over the "condemnations" of God and promote the idea that all you need to do is be a good person and all is good.

Only willful fools subscribe to that POV, in my opinion. Even a fundamental reading of the Bible would disprove the notion that God only wants one to be a 'good person' and that's it.

 

[K1052]

This is essentially what you're saying. We need some sort of moral standard in order to make rational conclusions about things, or there can logically be no 'right' or 'wrong' in the world.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality or perhaps even a decent claim to it often times since many religious texts contain endorsements of things that we now consider immoral by reason and logic.

 

[Retro Rob]

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality or perhaps even a decent claim to it often times since many religious texts contain endorsements of things that we now consider immoral by reason and logic.

I said nothing of the sort. I was showing the logical inconsistency of saying on one hand the God of the Bible is wrong, and then saying on the other hand that people should use their "own moral compass" when looking at such things.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I said nothing of the sort. I was showing the logical inconsistency of saying on one hand the God of the Bible is wrong, and then saying on the other hand that people should use their "own moral compass" when looking at such things.

I think part of the problem with the term "moral compass" is that it can really mean anything. For example, you yourself said that you were once atheist, and have since become Christian. Presumably then, there was some act in deciding which moral philosophy you would take as truth. Whether the source of that decision was logical reasoning, empirical observation, or divine intervention, all of these things could be considered your "moral compass".

SlowSpyder was attempting to show that having a different basis for that moral compass, of which--right or wrong--there are many, results in radically different moral interpretations of the same event.

The example he gave, of an innocent child dying, is an apt one. To someone inclined to believe in an omnipotent, benevolent deity, that child's death must have been part of some greater plan that will lead to good in the universe. To someone inclined to believe in a universe without such a power, the notion of an almighty being killing a child seems like malice. That is not to say either point of view is inherently right based on that evidence, but rather that there are real contradictions in the value judgements of the atheist and the theist.

 

[alzan]

I just think that this is due to the fact that people are more attracted to either (1) tradition, or (2) what they see as true teachings and not just temporary, emotional satisfaction, in my opinion.

I admittedly don't know much about liberal Churches, but it seems as if they simply gloss over the "condemnations" of God and promote the idea that all you need to do is be a good person and all is good.

Only willful fools subscribe to that POV, in my opinion. Even a fundamental reading of the Bible would disprove the notion that God only wants one to be a 'good person' and that's it.

Some people will always feel a communal need to be part of a larger group and religion fills that need nicely; hell there's club houses and discussion venues of all stripes in villages, towns and cities all across the nation. Tradition is one part of the mix, teachings are another. Emotional satisfaction, however temporary is the binding agent that keeps various congregations together.

Liberal church, that's funny.

That's the way you read the Bible though; not every Christian interprets the same passage(s) the same way. Who is anyone to say that being a good person is not a path to G-d. Jesus allegedly said to love your neighbor as you love yourself; golden rule. Abridged version - be a good person.

 

[Bee4945]

I don't send " God Bless You " to all people around the world , just some of Church Friend only . As for my other friend that atheist or whatever I don't care LOL

So no , all my texting is not word from God , just me the one who text them

 

[Retro Rob]

That's the way you read the Bible though; not every Christian interprets the same passage(s) the same way.

What passages? I didn't mention any.

Who is anyone to say that being a good person is not a path to G-d. Jesus allegedly said to love your neighbor as you love yourself; golden rule. Abridged version - be a good person.

Ok - lets take this on at a time; say for example you're right and all you need to be is a "good person". What constitutes a "good person"? A person who donates to charity? A person who marries his wife instead of living unmarried? A person who is nice to virtually every person he meets? A person who always volunteers to feed the homeless? A person who goes to church every single Sunday?

You have to first define what a good person is. Secondly, what if that person donates to charity, treats everyone he meets fairly, volunteers to feed the homeless, but beats his wife, steals time from his job, or neglects his children? Is he still a "good person"?

And if you can tell me what a good person is, that still doesn't mean the Christian God sees that person as a good person. As comforting as that sounds, being a good person cannot be enough because while people may do good things as far as our eyes can see, that doesn't make them a "good person", nor does it mean God sees them as such.

 

[alzan]

What passages? I didn't mention any.



Ok - lets take this on at a time; say for example you're right and all you need to be is a "good person". What constitutes a "good person"? A person who donates to charity? A person who marries his wife instead of living unmarried? A person who is nice to virtually every person he meets? A person who always volunteers to feed the homeless? A person who goes to church every single Sunday?

You have to first define what a good person is. Secondly, what if that person donates to charity, treats everyone he meets fairly, volunteers to feed the homeless, but beats his wife, steals time from his job, or neglects his children? Is he still a "good person"?

And if you can tell me what a good person is, that still doesn't mean the Christian God sees that person as a good person. As comforting as that sounds, being a good person cannot be enough because while people may do good things as far as our eyes can see, that doesn't make them a "good person", nor does it mean God sees them as such.

I would say all examples you mention are indicative of the behavior of a "good person".

In your second paragraph the behaviors of the person you describe is not indicative of a good person; he chooses to assume a false public persona to appear good but his actions when out of public view negate the good.

Nor does it mean that the Christian G-d doesn't see such a person as a good person. Allegedly it is the Christian G-d who is the arbiter of a good vs. an evil person; your faith may tell you that you know how G-d views and will ultimately judge people but you really don't know.

There are many examples of good people, some we know personally and some only known through various media. These are people of many faiths and of none; a devout Buddhist, an ethical atheist, an ardent Christian, etc. Someone who lives the golden rule and follows the laws of society is a good person.

 

[IronWing]

This is completely illogical because you cannot just pick and choose when your own moral compass comes into play. Why? Because what's right to one person, could be wrong to another. So in the end, no one is 'right' about God's actions -- it's all relative.

This is essentially what you're saying. We need some sort of moral standard in order to make rational conclusions about things, or there can logically be no 'right' or 'wrong' in the world.

Each person has a moral standard we are responsible for and responsible to. There is no objective moral standard, only subjective, personal standards. Each person's moral standard is absolute or it wouldn't be a moral standard. Each person judges their own god(s) and other's god(s) in light of our own moral standard. With our own god(s) it is a simple matter to adjust the nature of god to suit our personal morality or choose to cast our god(s) into the role of evil one. In judging the god(s) offered by others we can only pass moral judgement.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Each person has a moral standard we are responsible for and responsible to. There is no objective moral standard, only subjective, personal standards. Each person's moral standard is absolute or it wouldn't be a moral standard. Each person judges their own god(s) and other's god(s) in light of our own moral standard. With our own god(s) it is a simple matter to adjust the nature of god to suit our personal morality or choose to cast our god(s) into the role of evil one. In judging the god(s) offered by others we can only pass moral judgement.

sounds like double talk....

 

[IronWing]

sounds like double talk....

How so?

 

[alkemyst]

This is just a rehash of the theism thread so atheists or trolls can flame the theists.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

This is just a rehash of the theism thread so atheists or trolls can flame the theists.

I'm neither an atheist or troll. I just don't believe in the version of these man-made texts. These books (Bible and BoM, in particular) make god out to be this petty all-knowing troll.

 

[alkemyst]

I'm neither an atheist or troll. I just don't believe in the version of these man-made texts. These books (Bible and BoM, in particular) make god out to be this petty all-knowing troll.

Well, first the Book of Mormon, The Torah, The Quran/Koran, Old Testament are combinations of texts that were assembled from the time. These texts were almost mostly distributed via the telephone game for a long time.

There is no doubts that some of the modern books have had tampering (e.g. The King James Version for one).

There is not doubt that some of these texts were not God's word/work at all but, stories of man and their works.

Many of the parts though are supposed to be the words of God.

Again, the other thread that's in DC is more than adequate for a "God doesn't exist/God is a huge farce/God is for the sheeple/God is a troll" junk.

The answer is yes, most people believe their texts are the word of God in part.