Can you show any instances humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism being as equally dangerous as religions have been throughout history?

But of course you know that many religious people maintain that complete faith in God erases these fears and doubts. The Abraham story pushes this to the limit. Could a father feel any faith in God under such circumstances? — J

The Abraham story pushes the idea that unity with God is achieved through blind obedience. Unity with God is the carrot and obedience is the goal. Shouldn't unity with God be the goal?

What I meant about being obvious is that if a person and God are separate there will be fear and doubt, and if there’s no separation, if a person is ‘one with God’, there won’t be fear and doubt. What could be more obvious than that?

Oh, you never know. Might not be so obvious after all . . . — J

Don’t leaves us hanging.

The very question you ask is, I believe, why the story of Abraham was written and became part of the canon. Kierkegaard has a good book about it. :smile: — J

Why would anyone need to read a book about something so obvious?

The oddest thing is why anyone with faith would object to the claim that The Binding of Isaac is essentially about obedience. If you truly believe there’s a God and God is good, why would you hesitate to obey them? The need for trust to be earned demonstrates the separation. It’s like denying that it’s about blind obedience is an admission that you don’t really believe.

If I lived in Phili I’d go paint it, assuming the country workers are as slow as the ones around here.

You brought up the practice of interpreting religious doctrine. The Myanmar monks are an example of how useful that practice can be, and of how drastic reinterpretations can be. If you know anything about Buddhism you may appreciate how antithetical ethnic cleansing is to the tradition. Traditions change of course. A key tenet of Buddhism is that everything changes.

But you're the one looking at the art. See what you will. — Hanover

Speaking of interpreting works to work for you, I recently learned of the 2017 genocide in Myanmar. It was only a little surprising that Buddhist monks were behind it. I was far more appalled that Facebook played an instrumental role, and they were fully aware of what was going on.

How can Buddhist teachings be twisted to justify fucking ethnic cleansing? Rather easily it turns out.



Have faith and see what you're told to see.

Unparalleled profundity.

Someone's made a model of my desk... — Banno

:lol: I spent a couple of hours cleaning up the garage today and unfortunately it still resembles a contemporary piece of art.

The story of Abraham means that God will justify your faith in him. We can trust God no matter what. It’s not about, what crazy murder can someone commit. At all. Abraham was rational, he trusted God, and was right and justified. — Fire Ologist

It’s essentially about obedience. Abraham demonstrates unwavering obedience, carrying out God's command without expressing fear or doubt. His commitment to the task is so great that he even deceives his son with carefully chosen words, ultimately resulting in divine reward.

Fine, but then, good luck working whatever muscle allows people to trust each other, and good luck building a world where trust between two people is not needed. Good luck building love. — Fire Ologist

One challenge with religious faith is its inherent exclusivity to the specific tradition it embraces. Your defensiveness and rather ungenerous interpretation of what Banno is saying may be a demonstration of this.

Biblical interpretation is a field unto itself — Hanover

Frightening, when it comes to interpreting a story like this for obedient followers.

Funny result. — Hanover

Not at all.

An AI recalls Yuval Noah Harari's argument for me that Homo sapiens' survival and dominance were largely due to their ability to create and believe in shared fictions—stories, myths, and collective beliefs that allowed large groups to cooperate.

Unlike other human species (like Neanderthals), who mainly relied on direct personal relationships, Homo sapiens could unite thousands or even millions of people under abstract ideas, such as religions, nations, money, and laws. These shared fictions helped create trust and large-scale collaboration, giving Homo sapiens an evolutionary advantage.

So in a way, our survival and success depended not just on raw intelligence but on our ability to believe in things that don't physically exist, like gods, borders, and economies.

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, but just the result of various reactions over time (a cosmic coincidence) that will eventually result in my death and return to my constituive parts (decayed orderly cellular composition back to dust). — Hanover

I'm suggesting that stories give things meaning. For example, if you ask a theologian why God created the Moon, they might say its purpose is to control Earth’s tides—assuming they are aware of the science. The scientific explanation itself has a narrative structure, offering meaning and coherence, regardless of any theological interpretation layered onto it.

Then don't choose to belive in eternal rewards. I've not dictated a theology. — Hanover

I didn’t suggest that you were dictating a theology. I simply expressed my view. To be clear, “a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust” also sounds rather meaningless to me. Meaning is in the stories, whether religious or secular.

2) are the purpose of koans to bring out faith? — Gregory

They certainly require faith. They may or may not enhance it, if that’s what you mean. Ideally, for the sake of the religion, they would enhance faith.

I'm not just a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust. — Hanover

Honestly, a planed existence awaiting an eternal reward sounds rather meaningless to me. The story of the existence would be meaningful I’m sure.

Just a little doodle of a feeling I had the other day. The yellow lines are the double yellow lines of a road.

Love it. :lol:

I think if one were to adapt, and remove that word, one is not fit to adapt it. — AmadeusD

Ain’t nothin’ but a pile o’ words, not no holy book or such. I reckon ol’ Twain wouldn’t bat an eye ‘bout swappin’ one word for ‘nother.

Why not? — AmadeusD

Well, reckon folks steer clear o’ usin’ that word in “Huck Finn” nowadays ‘cause it’s mighty hurtful. Back in Twain’s time, it was common talk, but now it stings somethin’ fierce, remindin’ folks of bad times and ugly ways. Some swap it out or leave it be altogether, figurin’ it ain’t worth keepin’ if it’s gonna hurt folks. Others use it for learnin’, talkin’ ‘bout how things used to be so folks don’t go forgettin’. Either way, it’s a tricky business tryin’ to honor the past without hurtin’ folks in the here and now.

One thing’s fer certain, ain’t no adaptation gonna have that n-word in it, no matter how grown-up it tries to be.

I’m a-readin’ The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by that Mark Twain feller right now, an’ while it’s a mighty fine story, it’s got me jawin’ like a country boy somethin’ fierce. But I ain’t fixin’ to go usin’ that n-word though, no sir.

Byeeee.

If I mix two things together, and consider the result science but someone else considers it a function of the unknowable divine, who is to say who is wrong? — MrLiminal

Science is concerned with right and wrong.

Religion is concerned with group unification.

If a fictional narrative unites a group then disproving that narrative will make it loose its meaning and threaten group integrity.

It's fairly common for religious people to think that non-religious people are leading meaningless, aimless, worthless lives. — baker

Religious people are lead to believe all sorts of things. That doesn’t make what they believe true.

From the perspective of (some of) the religious, it is nihilistic, by definition so. — baker

What do you mean “by definition”? That isn’t the definition of nihilism.

The point I aim to make is that not believing in life after death, or being a materialist, or non-religious, is not nihilism. To believe that it is nihilism is denying reality and a rather extreme view, a grasping view.

What could be more nihilistic than to believe that life is suffering and the only way to escape the endless cycle of life and death is the complete extinguishment of everything that makes you you.

I think I would have expected your favorite to be less dark.

I'm listening to the audiobook and the richness of it is made a little richer with Kenneth Branagh reading.

:up:

The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution by Francis Fukuyama

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami

So much for the social contract ... — baker

I can't speak for other nations but the majority in the U.S. favor access to abortion. Just this month seven states passed legislation supporting women's right to choose. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say,"So much for the social contract..."

Where in the world is there a place where people won’t kill other people? In the United States the federal death penalty applies in all 50 states and U.S. territories. There was around 20k murders in the U.S. last year.

Progressivism really is like a secular religion, complete with the Paradise of Power to the People through Big Brother Federal Government. Republicans are the party of the immoral, selfish and stupid. Dems are the party of the morally upright, the community based, and the brilliant thinkers. — Fire Ologist

It seems rather contemptuous of religion to reduce it to mere political and social philosophy.

Looking at that giant ideology gap between young men and women in South Korea made me think of the 4B movement that started there around 2017-2018. I happened to read something about it the other day. The movement is supposedly getting some traction in the US since the election.

I’m a liberal Democrat. I don’t like losing elections and we shouldn’t be. Democrats govern and Republicans destroy. We should be the majority party, but we’re not. Here are some suggestions about how we might go about fixing this. — T Clark

Frankly, I don’t think the current state of affairs allows significant fixing. Democrats will have a comeback after Trump/Republican policies destabilize the economy, there’s a downturn, and Americans look to the alternative party to get out of the hole. Rinse and repeat.

Most abortion debates get nowhere because they're focusing on the personhood status of the unborn or the lack of such status, rather than looking at the intention for abortion and the implications of such intention. — baker

What are the implications?

Thats only a problem if you believe value derives from evolution, a proposition you presented but which I dont hold. — Ourora Aureis

If not evolution then from God?

You even mentioned social and cultural factors yourself, but then you immediately overule them with the gene propagation idea. — Ourora Aureis

I wrote that valuing human life is ingrained and the reason (you requested reasoning) I think it's ingrained is because it promotes gene propagation and the survival of our species.

I already presented why I think people hold these values, and its mostly a case of religious philosophy, not some innate emotional reaction that derives from their biology. — Ourora Aureis

I thought you were asking me why I value zygotes. Granted religious thought has been somewhat ingrained in me even though I've never really been religious.