Religions as a scam

[kkawohl]

The greatest scams which include deceit, swindle, and fraud, for several millennia, that have ever been perpetrated on mankind have been in the name of God. Many will disagree because "It is written in the Holy Books"; to which I say, "by fallible men who often let their imaginations run amuck".

The "Holy Books" (Bible, Torah, Qur’an) were written during a time when superstitions prevailed. Superstitions are an irrational belief that someone or something causes an action or circumstance not logically related to a course of events that influences its outcome. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

Christians, Jews and Muslims ALL claim that they live by the Word of God. They claim that God has personally talked to their messengers who have relayed these Words of God to the common folk in the writings of the Torah, Bible and the Qur’an.

The followers must unquestionably believe these Words of God or they will be condemned. If that is the case, apparently the Words of God were either misinterpreted, God is contradicting himself, or we start all over again by each side claiming to live by and having heard the Word of God correctly.

These so-called Holy Books could be inspirational and could help us in our journey through life if one discounts all the references to the writers vivid imaginations of physical sightings or conversations with God, Satan, snakes, devils or angels.

The Torah is the Hebrew name for the five books of Moses-the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The Torah is believed by Orthodox Jews to have been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the Jews. It laid down the fundamental laws of moral and physical conduct. The Torah begins with a description of the origin of the universe and ends on the word Israel, after the story of the death of Moses, just before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In a wider sense the Torah includes all teachings of the books of the Torah were written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 different authors on three continents in three languages.

The first 5 books, written by Moses about 1410 B.C. were accepted as authoritative by the people that initially received them. Transmission refers to the process of getting something written up to 3500 years ago to us. During transmission the documents are copied and errors are introduced. Some, who reject the truth of the bible argue that there errors are so many and so large that the bible is unreliable. Others, who accept the truth of the bible argue that the errors and alterations by copyists only slightly if at all diminish the reliability of the bible.

Jack Cargillis a Professor of Ancient History at Rutgers University, specializing in "Ancient Greece, the Near East, and Rome, and the interactions between them, with special interests in classical Greek epigraphy and historical issues related to the Bible and archaeology".

Quote:

...The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel... If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?

Jack Cargill, "Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks," The History Teacher (May 2001) (most Jewish historians agree with his conclusions)

Quote:

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation...

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document...

The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all."

The rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

MICHAEL MASSING - The New York Times, March 9, 2002

 

[iBrian]

I've taken the liberty of splitting this post off from the other thread, and creating a new thread from it, as it raises some rather major issues that would have drowned out the other topic (an exploration of the relationship between the Talmud and Torah).

In this instance, though, words such as "scam" and "superstition" are probably unwise. All human thinking is dictated to by what is considered known and truthful - but the goalposts for this are constantly changing according to the various sets of society, culture, and person.

People outside of any particular academic discipline are easily lead into believing that such studies have clear lines drawn between "truth" and "untruth". Nothing could be more false. Every academic area I have ever dipped my toes in has been rife with theory and counter-theory, and the more certainly you look into a subject, the less certainly you can draw any conclusive and exact "facts" from any such subject.

Yet many outside of these disciplines behave as if there is a principle of "one truth" in these disicplines, and completely fail to appreciate the dynamic nature of them. Therefore it should be clearly pointed out that the converse accusation of ignorance and irrationality are very much applicable to the wider understanding of secular subjects.

As for being critical of the Bible as an exact historical text - we're talking about a selection of writings spanning eras of history, that are indeed reflected in much of the Bible - whether we're talking about the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites, they are part of a cast of a very real ancient history.

Will the fact that Old Testament is written from a specifically Jewish perspective therefore influence the bias of the narrative? Of course it will. But read any ancient literature and you'll find rampant bias there.

If you actually read any form of ancient literature, you will find that there is usually no such thing as "objective history", either in the ancient commentaries themselves, nor even in the modern interpretative commentaries.

If you don't believe me, try deciphering the pre-Republican days of Rome as told by Livy, or read Byzantine literature, or explore the current Egyptian chronology, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

The most irrational thing we can do with any text - from any source - is dismiss it completely simply because it disagrees with our own self-set paradigms. To do so is to close ourselves off from learning.

 

[kkawohl]

The most irrational thing we can do with any text - from any source - is dismiss it completely simply because it disagrees with our own self-set paradigms. To do so is to close ourselves off from learning.

Brian, I agree with the above.

The title "Religions as a scam", IMHO, is inappropriate. It seems to slightly indicate that "religions are a scam", which is untrue. It is true however that the greatest scams which include deceit, swindle, and fraud, for several millennia that have ever been perpetrated on mankind have been in the name of God.

Spirituality does not require one to be a member of any religion. God is the rational Purity that does not require servitude, ritualistic prayers or a forced slavery in order for the soul to be a part of that Purity for eternity. God is spiritual, the progressive and accumulative spiritual intelligence of all the righteous souls who have passed into the spiritual realm. God does not and never has meddled in the tangible universe. It is of no importance during our physical life whether God exists or not if one so chooses. Whether or not one believes in a spirit or God really makes no difference to God. Righteous living will determine the continuance and destiny of our spirit/soul.

Kurt

 

[mahogan]

someting might be a scam

We are happy to say that 'religion is a scam' but we would not say that politics, or economics is a scam, only a particular branch with which we disagree. More people have been killed in wars in the 20th century than in the rest of known human history and of the 10 million or so who die of hunger, thirst and poverty every year, the majoriity are not involved in any religious discourse on why or how they die. There was a religious element to both of the major European wars of the 20th century but I think it is stretching an argument to blame either on religious fundamentalists, or having religious ends.

For religion to be a scam, I think we would have to show that there was a connsistent political, social or economic goal which a religious group sought to achieve to the detrement of other groups through trickery. These are traits posessed by most social groups but have a cultutal and socio-geographic basis rather than a theological one. Religious texts in themselves do not encourage lying, only the legal systems do that ;-7

Regards

Martin Hogan

Brian, I agree with the above.

The title "Religions as a scam", IMHO, is inappropriate. It seems to slightly indicate that "religions are a scam", which is untrue. It is true however that the greatest scams which include deceit, swindle, and fraud, for several millennia that have ever been perpetrated on mankind have been in the name of God.

Spirituality does not require one to be a member of any religion. God is the rational Purity that does not require servitude, ritualistic prayers or a forced slavery in order for the soul to be a part of that Purity for eternity. God is spiritual, the progressive and accumulative spiritual intelligence of all the righteous souls who have passed into the spiritual realm. God does not and never has meddled in the tangible universe. It is of no importance during our physical life whether God exists or not if one so chooses. Whether or not one believes in a spirit or God really makes no difference to God. Righteous living will determine the continuance and destiny of our spirit/soul.

Kurt

 

[kkawohl]

Re: someting might be a scam

We are happy to say that 'religion is a scam' but we would not say that politics, or economics is a scam, only a particular branch with which we disagree.

For religion to be a scam, I think we would have to show that there was a connsistent political, social or economic goal which a religious group sought to achieve to the detrement of other groups through trickery.
Martin Hogan

Martin, you are contradicting yourself in the above statements.

Kurt

 

[mahogan]

Re: someting might be a scam

[QUOTE
Originally Posted by mahogan
We are happy to say that 'religion is a scam' but we would not say that politics, or economics is a scam, only a particular branch with which we disagree.

For religion to be a scam, I think we would have to show that there was a connsistent political, social or economic goal which a religious group sought to achieve to the detrement of other groups through trickery.
Martin Hogan

E=kkawohl]Martin, you are contradicting yourself in the above statements.

Kurt[/QUOTE]


I'm not sure how this is a contradiction. I'm trying to understand the link between theology and human behaviour. My argument is that, for theology-/ religion to be a scam, we must show that it's primary goal is the furtherence of human ends, hence the creation of God was a deliberate human fallacy and that all those who believe in God, regardless of their religion, have been tricked. My opinion is that theology is not a global conspiracy to dupe the masses, so it cannot be a scam. This is not to say that *some* religions and *some* people are not involved in creating scams (as our jails will testify).

Very complex topic.

Regards

Martin Hogan

 

[kkawohl]

Re: someting might be a scam

We are happy to say that 'religion is a scam'…My opinion is that theology is not a global conspiracy to dupe the masses, so it cannot be a scam...My argument is that, for theology-/ religion to be a scam, we must show that it's primary goal is the furtherance of human ends…

Contradictions.

…hence the creation of God was a deliberate human fallacy and that all those who believe in God, regardless of their religion, have been tricked.

The creation of a man-like God with supreme powers over humanity was due to the conditioned perception and interpretations of the minds of those whose spirit interacted with a spiritual existence. Man in that time period had kings who ruled over the masses and God was likened to powerful kings. Misperceptions - yes. Intentional trickery or scam - no.

My opinion is that theology is not a global conspiracy to dupe the masses, so it cannot be a scam.

Theology is not a global conspiracy to dupe the masses…but "religions" have often been used as a conspiracy to dupe the masses. Theology is never a scam. An interesting book on the subject is "A History Of God" by Karen Armstrong.

Namaste Martin,

Kurt

 

[Marsh]

Re: someting might be a scam

The creation of a man-like God with supreme powers over humanity was due to the conditioned perception and interpretations of the minds of those whose spirit interacted with a spiritual existence. Man in that time period had kings who ruled over the masses and God was likened to powerful kings. Misperceptions - yes. Intentional trickery or scam - no.

...or maybe the initial organization of government into monarchies was modeled after a man-like God with supreme powers over humanity...

After all, were any of us there? Do we know for sure?

 

[iBrian]

Re: someting might be a scam

"religions" have often been used as a conspiracy to dupe the masses.

You might wish to try and support your statement. Again, you make a point of being critical of religion without seeming to actually understand anything of religion - a set of superficial arguments that you offer no real body for.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Re: someting might be a scam

Its easy to fall into the trap of just criticizing the surface of religion, because most of the 'faithful' don't go any further themselves. I was going to post some quotes from that early critic of Christianity, but I can't remember his name. Anyway...

Religion has crippled the human race, but not--in my opinion--as a conspiracy or human defect. Compared to the unquestionable illusions and delusions of humanity, philosophy and religion seem a positive creation. Its the political, deliberate attempt to use the fear of God to control the masses that is the truly evil core of religion. But I can find that same phenomenon in many secular frills.

 

[iBrian]

Re: someting might be a scam

Yes, I think the subject of that has been referred to in another thread.

 

[Avinash]

Re: someting might be a scam

Its the political, deliberate attempt to use the fear of God to control the masses that is the truly evil core of religion.

And it is this evil core of religion which is now being rejected by the more educated masses in this world. The future looks bright.

 

[kkawohl]

Re: someting might be a scam

And it is this evil core of religion which is now being rejected by the more educated masses in this world. The future looks bright.

Intellectualism is a doctrine which holds that pure reason is the source of knowledge.

Indeed, the future looks bright...woe be the present.

 

[Quahom1]

The greatest scams which include deceit, swindle, and fraud, for several millennia, that have ever been perpetrated on mankind have been in the name of God. Many will disagree because "It is written in the Holy Books"; to which I say, "by fallible men who often let their imaginations run amuck".

The "Holy Books" (Bible, Torah, Qur’an) were written during a time when superstitions prevailed. Superstitions are an irrational belief that someone or something causes an action or circumstance not logically related to a course of events that influences its outcome. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

Oh, my friend, I so want to tackle this one with you, but I am too damn tired tonight. Maybe we can continue the game tomorrow. But I do want to leave you with this thought. Superstition is not irrational, it is a basic fallback to a conservative nature, when we do not understand something. It keeps us alive, until we can get the courage to venture out past our fear. Call it a buffer, if you will.

v/r

Q

 

[Mus Zibii]

Religion does more than satisfy superstition, for one thing. Bad religion is like SPAM. It makes grand promises to solve genuine problems. Just because the promises are unfulfilled doesn't mean the problems aren't real or can't be solved. Just ask the guy who invented viagra. A cure for impotence was as outrageous to many as the conception of God for a long time.

Hey, Quahom1, I think I just defined blasphemy. LOL

 

[DrewJMore]

I've been drawn in by the provocative title of this thread, and am interested in the foregoing discussion which led to the lengthy initial diatribe. With luck I'll find the 'Torah vs Talmud' thread later.



Nevertheless, the coupled-pittance which I offer follows:



Religion provides a/the framework of control-- social, political and otherwise. It represents an appeal to a power higher than "might makes right." The existence of that higher power is worthy of debate. However, once established, those to whom the levers of control are bequeathed invariably continue to build "moral" and "legal" structures based upon the stipulated will of God. The generally familiar stories of the Torah are interwoven with divine decree regarding the priesthood, the temple and the proper respect thereof. Indeed Adam is the first "priest." Later in the saga, kings are crowned and given "divine guidance."



The word "scam" implies ill-will. Any harm that followed from the coalescence of the Hebrew religion/people is moot. It is understood that individuals with only their own interests at heart inevitably come into conflict. A group, family or tribe convinced to act with a single purpose (such as the usurpation of land) can be shown to be an overwhelming historical motivator. In the end, might still makes right.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrewJMore, welcome to CR!

Religion provides a/the framework of control-- social, political and otherwise. It represents an appeal to a power higher than "might makes right." The existence of that higher power is worthy of debate. However, once established, those to whom the levers of control are bequeathed invariably continue to build "moral" and "legal" structures based upon the stipulated will of God. The generally familiar stories of the Torah are interwoven with divine decree regarding the priesthood, the temple and the proper respect thereof. Indeed Adam is the first "priest." Later in the saga, kings are crowned and given "divine guidance."

Ummm, yeah but... You see, this is not only true of christianity or judaism, but of all religions that date to that period of time, and really all that have come since. If Adam was the first priest, as you suggest, then he was a shaman at least 25 thousand years ago.

The word "scam" implies ill-will. Any harm that followed from the coalescence of the Hebrew religion/people is moot. It is understood that individuals with only their own interests at heart inevitably come into conflict. A group, family or tribe convinced to act with a single purpose (such as the usurpation of land) can be shown to be an overwhelming historical motivator. In the end, might still makes right.

Yeah, the political/religious structure upon which society was built. Not just any society, every society. So? This was the norm from long before Adam until 225 odd years ago when america instituted the separation of church and state.

 

[DrewJMore]

Your affirmation is appreciated. Refer to Genesis 4:26, where it is during the lifetime of Seth that people begin to worship the Lord. I'll need to look over my apocryphia to find the actual text that calls Adam the first priest.

As for America, I'm not certain that you can prove your case for a separation between church & state here. Establishment & free exercise are protected, but I'm not familiar with any part of the U.S. code that enforces a separation. In fact the Declaration of Independence, as the first premise for it's argument, appeals to God for legitimacy. Even Rousseau demands a basic faith amongst his subjects. Apologies for the digression.

Perhaps you've taken me for a biblical literalist with whom you'd like to argue.
Make no mistake, and see my post on the "Ultimate Question," I am a student of faithful people, but claim no faith or knowledge of the truth for myself.

 

[Bandit]

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There is no law on re____. That is why so many re___s are allowed in the USA.


understood as separation of church and state for 225 years.
So lets hear the 225 new interpretations for the 1st ammendment.

If Adam was the first priest would that make Eve the first wife of the first priest?

 

[DrewJMore]

The first amendment reads...understood as separation of church and state...

The first 10 amendments to the US constitution are the Bill of Rights. These refer to rights of the people upon which the gov't cannot infringe.

However, I have just confirmed that Article VI (that is: 6) Clause 3 states, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " I must admit that this sounds like an argument for separation. I stand corrected.

If Adam was the first priest would that make Eve the first wife of the first priest?

Adam was made of clay, and so was his first wife Lillith. Eve, his second wife, was made from his rib. We could get hopelessly caught up in the so-called facts and details of Adam's so-called life.
Fortunately, my original point was (and is) that the Levite priesthood leveraged their position as the interpreters of the will of Y-w-h to direct the campaign of terror unleashed on the middle-east by the Israelites post-exodus. Draw your own conclusions as to the actual source of such 'divine' will.