Why do religions exist?

[RJM]

I pretty much share this belief, but I'm curious - what do you consider "unholy"?
Or how do you define "unholy" - or do you even believe in "unholy"?

Ok. I'm battling. But I think I can define the profane as that which knowingly and deliberately tramples down upon the 'transcendent and the sacred and the holy'. It is Satan.

It is Daniel's abomination of desolation in the temple. In a lesser degree it is that 'humanism' which drags down the purity and glory of the divine and tries to require it to become equal and uniform and grey. Which wants to make diamonds equal with clay. Something like that?

 

[StevePame]

Geez, replace I'll with all...and a few of my synapses as well.

I think I got it all edited for you.

 

[wil]

Thx

 

[apexcone]

Because men love rules

 

[RJM]

Because men love rules

Perhaps men love freedom?

 

[wil]

Because men love rules

I don't know of a religion that doesn't should all over its adherents

Perhaps men love freedom?

that is gonna require explanation

 

[RJM]

Perhaps men love freedom?

that is gonna require explanation

Try and arrest a Hells Angel, lol

 

[apexcone]

Perhaps men love freedom?

I do

 

[RJM]

I do

Rules are necessary for a tribe or society to function though. In a sense the rules are there to protect freedom. But the rules of the 15th Century are no longer the same rules as the 21st Century?

 

[wil]

Try and arrest a Hells Angel, lol

?? Lots of hells.angels are in jail

 

[RJM]

?? Lots of hells.angels are in jail

But they don't go peacefully. People do not willingly surrender their freedom. It's the untrue concept of dark churchmen herding mindless serfs into church against their will.

Rulers have abused religion for material power.

But religions themselves actually have always offered people freedom from the yoke of oppression? Like the slaves in America. Their religious faith was their only hope and only joy.

The poor and untouchables in Asia have their religion as solace. It's not forced on them?

 

[apexcone]

Reading an excellent book by John Spong called “Unbelievable”

He spends a whole chapter talking about the 10 commandments (laws/rules) and how they were written in a time and culture context. He systematically goes through each one and says why there not relevant today.

If your interested in a great eye opening book I highly recommend it.

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

Hard to understand - for me - how "You shall not steal" is not relevant for today. Think I'll take a peek at this book - see his explanations.

 

[RJM]

Reading an excellent book by John Spong called “Unbelievable”

He spends a whole chapter talking about the 10 commandments (laws/rules) and how they were written in a time and culture context. He systematically goes through each one and says why there not relevant today.

If your interested in a great eye opening book I highly recommend it.

Well, look: of all the problems scripture has with some people trying to impose tribal rules written thousands of years ago upon global 21st Century societies, I do find it a bit difficult to see how, of all the Bible, it is the 10 commandments that are nowadays irrelevant or problematic?

I'm probably not going to get around to read that book anytime soon (because I've lots of reading) so would you like to boil down some of what it says, for this thread?

 

[apexcone]

Hard to understand - for me - how "You shall not steal" is not relevant for today. Think I'll take a peek at this book - see his explanations.

It’s a great book and of course he doesn’t say that steeling is ok, his question is: what was that commandment referring to. Thats why the Bible must be interpreted by asking 2 questions. Who were these laws written for and why?

Like all laws very few are eternal. Ethics, and context is what most law preachers fail to consider

 

[apexcone]

Well, look: of all the problems scripture has with some people trying to impose tribal rules written thousands of years ago upon global 21st Century societies, I do find it a bit difficult to see how, of all the Bible, it is the 10 commandments that are nowadays irrelevant or problematic?

I'm probably not going to get around to read that book anytime soon (because I've lots of reading) so would you like to boil down some of what it says, for this thread?

Wow this is a challenge.

Bishop John Spong is a retired Bishop of Newark, he is a world renowned theologian, intellectual and has a heart for God and his people. Like 1000s of others today including myself he doesn't believe the Bible is the word of God nor should it be interpreted literally but symbolically. His book "Biblical Literalism, A Gentile Heresy"

https://www.amazon.ca/Biblical-Literalism-Gentile-Christianity-Matthews/dp/0062362313

is one of the most challenging books I've ever read in 35 years of faith. It has strengthen my faith, given me a greater understanding who God is and stripped away all the religious crap that surrounds evangelicalism.

His latest book: "Unbelievable" is equally amazing.

https://www.amazon.ca/Biblical-Literalism-Gentile-Christianity-Matthews/dp/0062362313

The Ten Commandments

"Do not take the Lords name in vain". Today we interpret that meaning it's wrong to say "for Gods sake" or "Jesus Christ" as I said in an earlier post the Bible can only be accurately interpreted if we understand the time, place, culture & reason why these things were said. This commandant was given to people in a space and a time, it was never meant to be a law for everyone for ever. What was is for. During this time there were no lawyers, no courts and no legal systems in place so how did people do business? So what does taking the Lords name in vain mean. During this period, (It's not the period we live in) two people who were embarking on a legal transaction stood facing each other shock hands and recited the terms of their agreement, and the deal is done. 'Taking the Lords name in vain" was about rescinding/back peddling or dis-homering the agreement.

As you can see that is VERY different than what people think it means, so taking the Lords name in vain has nothing to do with cursing its about dishonoring agreements, still important today, but all the meanings, context and ethics have changed, which is why the Bible should not be interpreted literally.

Man, I'm exhausted, I'm sure I haven't done this justice

 

[wil]

Uh oh, another Spong promoter, lol.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Jack's books and thought, there are others here tho...not so much.

 

[RJM]

Man, I'm exhausted, I'm sure I haven't done this justice

Thanks for the effort. I've checked him out a bit and can understand where he's coming from.

I've never been a fundamentalist, so I've never seen the necessity to apply the word of the Old Testament exactly as it stands.

Even as a young child in catechism class I'd secretly shake my head when the old priest insisted I must believe that Adam and Eve were real actual people, etc. I thought, uh uh, I don't have to buy that.

It didn't make me an unbeliever though. I never felt any guilt about it. Sin was pretty clear. The spirit of the Old Testament was easy enough to understand.

The chapel part of my bleak Jesuit boarding school education from 7yrs of age was the part that bought me peace.

So I do think he's tilting windmills with the 10 commandments. However they originated, they are as true for the 21st century as when they were written. Imo.

For instance taking the Lord's name in vain goes quite a lot beyond swearing when you hit your thumb with a hammer, or ducking out on paying. I think it means actually cursing the (holy) spirit of goodness and truth. That's different.

(post edited)

 

[Thomas]

Bishop John Spong is a retired Bishop of Newark, he is a world renowned theologian...

In his own opinion and those of his fans and followers

 

[Thomas]

So I do think he's tilting windmills with the 10 commandments. However they originated, they are as true for the 21st century as when they were written. Imo.

It's curious that for someone who accuses and abuses scholars of being 'literalists' when they disagree with him, his critique rests on a rather shallow and literal interpretation of scripture.

For instance taking the Lord's name in vain goes quite a lot beyond swearing when you hit your thumb with a hammer...

Indeed.

And, as an aside, Thomas Aquinas defended that kind of exclamation as an 'ejaculatory prayer' in that, in a moment of pain, it's a plea for succour and thus someone who hit his thumb and broke the third commandment need not therefore be a heretic!

I think it means actually cursing the (holy) spirit of goodness and truth. That's different.

Indeed. I've also read an explanation that it's an affirmation of the rule against false gods. So applying the term 'god' to a profane deity would be taking the Lord's name in vain.

In ancient traditions across the globe, it was understood that to utter the Divine Name was to invoke the Divine, so not something to be done lightly. No prayer is greater in any tradition than those that utter the Divine Name.

A more contemporary teaching might be the commandment reminds man not to put himself before God, that is not to see everything as according to me; that there is no truth greater than my personal narrative; that I know what's best for me ... there is a tendency in this age to put one's own name where God's name should be, that when one seeks 'God within', or one's 'higher power/higher consciousness', what one is actually still talking about is the self.