Was religion invented by man?

[goout]

The objection goes to what it means to be chosen.
The objection assumes that if a particular culture is the chosen people, then others are deprived. That’s not the way supernatural abundance works.

It’s not either/or, you are chosen and the rest are not. It’s both/and.
God reveals himself to people in the way they are able to receive.

I don’t buy my wife flowers because she sees no use in them. In her view they sit there and look pretty and die.
Chocolate on the other hand is the gift above all other gifts.
What do I give her? Chocolate. It’s what she is receptive to.

Your objection is like "you never bought your wife flowers!!. So you are a bad husband. "

Down the road further, if I discover from the neighbor that only steak dinners will truly satisfy a woman, then yes, I take what he has discovered and apply it, if I am a reasonable person.

Faith requires a trust in other people and in their witness. It’s not about proof, it’s about relationship. Fundamentalism robs a person of relationship. Relationship cannot be proved like that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If religion can be generally defined as the search for ultimate Truth, that search is virtually universal. This means that all men everywhere are searching to discover the Truth, not to invent it.

Of all the religions of the world there is I believe only one whose God said in no uncertain terms:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6

Many religions have found partial truth, some have been frustrated by too vivid imagination. God revealed himself to the Jews because at that time they alone, by their profoundly radical worship of a single deity, carried the promise of spreading that truth to all nations, ultimately through the charge of Jesus that it should be so.

 

[Cheiron]

FYI, the mixed-fabric prohibition in the Hebrew Bible applies ONLY to mixing linen with another fabric. There is NO prohibition against mixing any other fabrics.

You’re referring to Deuteronomy 22:11. I’m talking about Leviticus 19:19.

Why would he hand everyone a copy of the same book? That is a fundamentalist idea, that God is definitive information rather than a living person who asks for a response. People respond differently and in unique ways. Right? That is easily observable in human beings. Uniqueness.

In responding to God through religion, how would two mutually ignorant cultures know each other? Remember, this is before mass communication is available.
Human beings are unique, we are diverse. We have different modes of expression and different cultures. You envision a God who micromanages human beings and must violate human dignity by dictation of the word, or dictatorship.
AKA fundamentalism.

I don’t ask God to micromanage the response people have.

But he does. And you are observing it.
You contradict yourself.

In the Bible He doesn’t.

Because God is a god of the fabrics, as written in the OT?
Fundamentalism.

Apparantly He is. In Exodus 26 He goes in excruciating detail about the curtains of the Tabernacle. I didn’t write those rules.

“our” refers to the entire human race and “the best explanation” is not restricted to physical causes but includes the reason for, and the purpose of, our existence - unless you believe life is absurd.

The purpose of my existence is something that I’d like to decide for myself. As for the existence of the entire human race; I think evolution does a pretty good of explaining how humans came to be. Which I can’t do here, because the subject is banned. Sorry.

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re referring to Deuteronomy 22:11. I’m talking about Leviticus 19:19.

I don’t ask God to micromanage the response people have.

In the Bible He doesn’t.

Apparantly He is. In Exodus 26 He goes in excruciating detail about the curtains of the Tabernacle. I didn’t write those rules.

The purpose of my existence is something that I’d like to decide for myself. As for the existence of the entire human race; I think evolution does a pretty good of explaining how humans came to be. Which I can’t do here, because the subject is banned. Sorry.

Deuteronomy is a summation, a recapitulation of the previous books of the Torah, and puts these verses in a broader perspective. The mixing of fabrics has been interpreted as making a patchwork which displays arrogant pride and vanity as well as offending the poor who cannot afford such display. The unity of fabric which is pure and not mixed also symbolizes the structural unity of the universe, which might become unraveled if fabrics are intertwined. The context and theme of the other verses in Leviticus itself tells us that this is not a mere ceremonial ritual.

 

[Cheiron]

You don’t get to drill down and down and down to a single religion/denomination.
Look at the thread topic.

You are artificially setting the bar unreasonably high then claiming victory because the Roman Catholic Church didn’t independently come into existence in Sydney and Tokyo as well as Rome.

If religion arises in two cultures independently and both religions hold that a First Cause, Higher Being, Creator, Deity, Law Giver, Moral Arbiter exists, then (in my opinion) that qualifies as a defeater of your claim.

And your demand for them to both be one single homogeneous, orthodox religion[sup]TM[/sup] that agrees on every doctrine and dogma is a quibbling.

I don’t think I set the bar too high at all. Nor did I expect all religions to agree on minor issues. I deliberately chose to focus on the most important issues within religion: how to worship and how to get to heaven. These are also matters that are important to God Himself I think.

No, atheism is just another competing claim with respect to the nature of God.
You are effectively arguing that there would be no atheists if nobody had ever first asserted the existence of God. That’s a tautology because if nobody thought God was real then we would all be atheists. And then Lion IRC would be saying…"I’m only a theist because I was confronted with all those unsubstantiated claims by atheism"

I was thinking about atheism as a concious rejection of God. But you’re right, if nobody ever brought up the subject of God, then all humans would be atheists. With that definition we can say that most species that are able to think are atheists, except homo sapiens ofcourse. Not that it matters much.

And I want to point out that you too offered a definition of atheism as a response to claims of theistic experience.

The irony is that atheism - the invented idea that there’s no such thing as God and that all theistic experience is imaginary - is itself just another one of the competing claims.

That harkens back to my earlier point about the difference between the ‘invention’ of penicillin and the discovery of penicillin.

All evidence is derived from the senses and if you think the sensory evidence leading to the God Conclusion is invented rather than discovered, then epistemology breaks down - your epistemology breaks down.

Furthermore, your own position becomes metaphysically untenable because your imagined/invented worldview can’t objectively refute any other worldview. #brain_in_a_vat

Yes, my senses can be wrong. We could all be living in something like The Matrix or be a puppet in one of the The Sims games. But as long as I don’t see evidence of that, I won’t accept it as true. I don’t think 100% certainty about anything is possible.

No. They all unanimously (and correctly) agree there IS something which can be felt - sensory evidence for the existence of a thing that really is there. They aren’t INVENTING it.

I haven’t had a religious experience. So I ask myself: how can I know whether the other religious experiences are true? Well, experiences that can’t be verified or falsified are ofcourse gone in the first round. Experiences that can be falsified often are. I’m thinking of the luminescent virgin statue of Jalhay (Belgium). Or the ‘miraculous’ healing of Monica Besra.

And you did not answer my question, so I’ll repeat it.

It seems you claim that believers of other religions have genuinely experienced the Divine and that they are completely wrong about what they experienced. That seems to me very, very opportunistic. You simultaneously accept and deny other people’s religious experiences. On what basis do you decide what to accept and what to dismiss?

How do you decide which religious experience is true and which one is false?

 

[tonyrey]

“our” refers to the entire human race and “the best explanation” is not restricted to physical causes but includes the reason for, and the purpose of, our existence - unless you believe life is absurd.

The purpose of my existence is something that I’d like to decide for myself.
Thank you for confirming you believe in free will which is incompatible with the law of conservation of energy…

As for the existence of the entire human race; I think evolution does a pretty good of explaining how humans came to be. Which I can’t do here, because the subject is banned.

It isn’t necessary to go into the details of evolution because the issue is the reason for, and the purpose of, our existence whereas evolution is restricted to physical causes. Do you believe there is no reason why we exist?

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t get to drill down and down and down to a single religion/denomination.
Look at the thread topic.

You are artificially setting the bar unreasonably high then claiming victory because the Roman Catholic Church didn’t independently come into existence in Sydney and Tokyo as well as Rome.

If religion arises in two cultures independently and both religions hold that a First Cause, Higher Being, Creator, Deity, Law Giver, Moral Arbiter exists, then (in my opinion) that qualifies as a defeater of your claim.

And your demand for them to both be one single homogeneous, orthodox religion[sup]TM[/sup] that agrees on every doctrine and dogma is a quibbling.

No, atheism is just another competing claim with respect to the nature of God.
You are effectively arguing that there would be no atheists if nobody had ever first asserted the existence of God. That’s a tautology because if nobody thought God was real then we would all be atheists. And then Lion IRC would be saying…"I’m only a theist because I was confronted with all those unsubstantiated claims by atheism"

That harkens back to my earlier point about the difference between the ‘invention’ of penicillin and the discovery of penicillin.

All evidence is derived from the senses and if you think the sensory evidence leading to the God Conclusion is invented rather than discovered, then epistemology breaks down - your epistemology breaks down.

Furthermore, your own position becomes metaphysically untenable because your imagined/invented worldview can’t objectively refute any other worldview. #brain_in_a_vat

No. They all unanimously (and correctly) agree there IS something which can be felt - sensory evidence for the existence of a thing that really is there. They aren’t INVENTING it.

I agree with you - with the proviso that the most significant evidence is derived from introspection.

 

[Cheiron]

It isn’t necessary to go into the details of evolution because the issue is the reason for, and the purpose of, our existence whereas evolution is restricted to physical causes. Do you believe there is no reason why we exist?

From that perspective the answer to your question is yes. I don’t think there is any purpose in the universe, other than what we make of it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Deuteronomy is a summation, a recapitulation of the previous books of the Torah, and puts these verses in a broader perspective. The mixing of fabrics has been interpreted as making a patchwork which displays arrogant pride and vanity as well as offending the poor who cannot afford such display. The unity of fabric which is pure and not mixed also symbolizes the structural unity of the universe, which might become unraveled if fabrics are intertwined. The context and theme of the other verses in Leviticus itself tells us that this is not a mere ceremonial ritual.

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but one misunderstanding in this thread (not your misunderstanding, I mean a few other participants) is that the laws of the Torah are applicable, in general, to Gentiles. That’s incorrect. Only a few laws, discoverable by reason and conscience, apply to Gentiles. The specific dietary, religious, and other laws in the Torah are for the Jewish people ONLY.

Judaism has never been a “proselytizing” faith tradition. I would say the main-stream Rabbinic opinion is that no Gentile is morally required to follow the Torah (other than the 7 laws), and no Gentile is required to “convert” to Judaism in any way to have a place in the World to Come. There is debate about this, of course, but the focus here on the specific requirements of Leviticus is misguided.

So far as I know, the Creator has made no law about which kinds of clothes Gentiles wear, or how they wear their hair, or anything like that.

I live in a Jewish neighborhood with a mix of ultra-orthodox, modern orthodox, Chabad, conservative, reform, and re-constructionist. No Jewish person has ever suggested that the 613 laws were meant as general moral requirements for all of humanity, only the 7 laws.

 

[Cheiron]

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but one misunderstanding in this thread (not your misunderstanding, I mean a few other participants) is that the laws of the Torah are applicable, in general, to Gentiles. That’s incorrect. Only a few laws, discoverable by reason and conscience, apply to Gentiles. The specific dietary, religious, and other laws in the Torah are for the Jewish people ONLY.

Judaism has never been a “proselytizing” faith tradition. I would say the main-stream Rabbinic opinion is that no Gentile is morally required to follow the Torah (other than the 7 laws), and no Gentile is required to “convert” to Judaism in any way to have a place in the World to Come. There is debate about this, of course, but the focus here on the specific requirements of Leviticus is misguided.

So far as I know, the Creator has made no law about which kinds of clothes Gentiles wear, or how they wear their hair, or anything like that.

I live in a Jewish neighborhood with a mix of ultra-orthodox, modern orthodox, Chabad, conservative, reform, and re-constructionist. No Jewish person has ever suggested that the 613 laws were meant as general moral requirements for all of humanity, only the 7 laws.

Thank you! This is exactly my point. The Abrahamic God is a Jewish god, not a universal one for all human beings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

From that perspective the answer to your question is yes. I don’t think there is any purpose in the universe, other than what we make of it.

He said, triumphant that truth was on his side.

 

[meltzerboy]

Thank you! This is exactly my point. The Abrahamic God is a Jewish god, not a universal one for all human beings.

Not exactly. While the strict ceremonial, ritual laws are not meant for Gentiles, the moral underpinnings of these laws as well as the moral laws per se are believed to be based on universal ethical principles that guide all humanity toward holiness in their relationship with G-d and with their fellow beings, both humans and animals. The Jewish people, however, are thought to have a special mission and responsibility in showing the rest of the world the way toward ethical behavior by means of their following these laws.

 

[meltzerboy]

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but one misunderstanding in this thread (not your misunderstanding, I mean a few other participants) is that the laws of the Torah are applicable, in general, to Gentiles. That’s incorrect. Only a few laws, discoverable by reason and conscience, apply to Gentiles. The specific dietary, religious, and other laws in the Torah are for the Jewish people ONLY.

Judaism has never been a “proselytizing” faith tradition. I would say the main-stream Rabbinic opinion is that no Gentile is morally required to follow the Torah (other than the 7 laws), and no Gentile is required to “convert” to Judaism in any way to have a place in the World to Come. There is debate about this, of course, but the focus here on the specific requirements of Leviticus is misguided.

So far as I know, the Creator has made no law about which kinds of clothes Gentiles wear, or how they wear their hair, or anything like that.

I live in a Jewish neighborhood with a mix of ultra-orthodox, modern orthodox, Chabad, conservative, reform, and re-constructionist. No Jewish person has ever suggested that the 613 laws were meant as general moral requirements for all of humanity, only the 7 laws.

This is generally correct. However, it is thought that even the so-called ritual laws, while not required to be followed by non-Jews, have moral underpinnings that can benefit the rest of humanity. In this sense, there is no real separation between ceremonial and moral laws.

 

[goout]

Thank you! This is exactly my point. The Abrahamic God is a Jewish god, not a universal one for all human beings.

God is not Jewish.
God is God. Use whatever name you want, God is radically other, he is radical and un-caused pure being. His identity has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.

He reveals himself to the Jewish people in a unique way, yes. But as a radically un-caused being, it’s probably safe to say he is the same God for everyone. How can the only being who can truly say “I exist without cause” (I Am Who Am) not be the same always and every where for all people?

You are still demanding uniformity of human expression where it cannot be possible. Human beings are each unique and unrepeatable. We have diverse peculiarities that translates into cultures and religious expressions.

But that doesn’t cause God to change or mean there are various God’s. The logic doesn’t follow.

 

[Cheiron]

Not exactly. While the strict ceremonial, ritual laws are not meant for Gentiles, the moral underpinnings of these laws as well as the moral laws per se are believed to be based on universal ethical principles that guide all humanity toward holiness in their relationship with G-d and with their fellow beings, both humans and animals. The Jewish people, however, are thought to have a special mission and responsibility in showing the rest of the world the way toward ethical behavior by means of their following these laws.

So the Gentiles don’t have to follow these laws, even though they are ethical, yet the Jews are send to the Gentiles to show how to live ethically by living by those laws. What? God works in mysterious ways indeed. This claim about a special mission seems to me a very arrogant one. You’re basically saying that God divided humans in two groups: a chosen people to whom He sends all the prophets and all revelation - the Jews - and the Gentiles, who have to revere Jews as their ethical role model. To me, that doesn’t sound like a universal God at all. That sounds like a tribal God, invented by a very conceited person.

God is not Jewish.
God is God. Use whatever name you want, God is radically other, he is radical and un-caused pure being. His identity has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.

He reveals himself to the Jewish people in a unique way, yes. But as a radically un-caused being, it’s probably safe to say he is the same God for everyone. How can the only being who can truly say “I exist without cause” (I Am Who Am) not be the same always and every where for all people?

You are still demanding uniformity of human expression where it cannot be possible. Human beings are each unique and unrepeatable. We have diverse peculiarities that translates into cultures and religious expressions.

But that doesn’t cause God to change or mean there are various God’s. The logic doesn’t follow.

Either I don’t understand your argument or you don’t understand my response. Or both.

I expect uniformity where revelation is concerned. That still leaves room for people to be happy, sad, angry, disappointed or have any other emotional response to that revelation. I don’t expect every culture to have the exact same expression of religion, but I do expect uniformity on the most important issues, like salvation or worship.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not exactly. While the strict ceremonial, ritual laws are not meant for Gentiles, the moral underpinnings of these laws as well as the moral laws per se are believed to be based on universal ethical principles that guide all humanity toward holiness in their relationship with G-d and with their fellow beings, both humans and animals. The Jewish people, however, are thought to have a special mission and responsibility in showing the rest of the world the way toward ethical behavior by means of their following these laws.

This mission of the Jewish faith was furthered by the appearance of Jesus, himself a Jew, so that the new covenant would cease to be local and “guide all humanity toward holiness in their relationship with G-d and with their fellow beings.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

God is not Jewish.
God is God. Use whatever name you want, God is radically other, he is radical and un-caused pure being. His identity has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.

He reveals himself to the Jewish people in a unique way, yes. But as a radically un-caused being, it’s probably safe to say he is the same God for everyone. How can the only being who can truly say “I exist without cause” (I Am Who Am) not be the same always and every where for all people?

You are still demanding uniformity of human expression where it cannot be possible. Human beings are each unique and unrepeatable. We have diverse peculiarities that translates into cultures and religious expressions.

But that doesn’t cause God to change or mean there are various God’s. The logic doesn’t follow.

Indeed, I agree with you. However, how can you believe this and simultaneously maintain that the Catholic Church is the one true religion, with all others being various degrees of error?

It’s perfectly fine to believe all religions are man’s attempt to form a relationship with the universal God, but it seems hypocritical to also believe that your religion is somehow 100% truth and others are lesser. In my view, all religions teach some truth and some error.

The criticism here is that if there were a truly universal, a truly comprehensive, a truly catholic religion that aligned perfectly with God’s attempt at relationship with us, then we would expect it to arise independently in different times and places like other human things (government, marriage, trade, music, art, war, etc). The lack of this religion does not disprove the existence of God, but it does undermine the truth claims of each and every particular religion.

Now, there are several religious traditions that have arisen in very different places and times: 1) fertility cults 2) sun worship and 3) atheism. I think there is something natural, something human about all three of those. Fertility cults and sun worship are a response of awe at reproduction and the majesty and power of the sun. Atheism, I think, is the response of reason to religion. We’re all atheists about all the gods except our own, and for good reasons too (in our opinions anyway).

Montheism is not absolutely unique to Judaism. I’d argue that the Jewish form of monotheism is quite unusual (a totally abstract God), but Akhnaten (Egyptian Pharoah) devised a form of monotheistic sun-worship long before Judaism appeared. I’d argue that Zoroastrianism is actually dualistic, but I’m not an expert on it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I expect uniformity where revelation is concerned. That still leaves room for people to be happy, sad, angry, disappointed or have any other emotional response to that revelation. I don’t expect every culture to have the exact same expression of religion, but I do expect uniformity on the most important issues, like salvation or worship.

None of your expectations have anything to do with the fact that all nations are in search of God, however frustrated and tenuous that search may be for one reason or another.

Uniformity of religions is a goal to be sought in a world that has lost its way since the sin of Adam. That we have been divided and conquered is the work of the devil. Even any notion that religion was invented is an inspiration of the devil who, as Jesus defined him, is a murderer and the Father of Lies.

 

[goout]

Indeed, I agree with you. However, how can you believe this and simultaneously maintain that the Catholic Church is the one true religion, with all others being various degrees of error?

For the same reason that some people who have met you don’t like you as well as others. In fact only one or two might love you deeply and truthfully. If the others really knew you, they should like you. But not everyone you meet has a fulfilling relationship with you. Not everyone knows you fully. Some people only grasp part of the truth of your being, your meaning, your purpose in life, who you are. Others know you much more fully.

It’s perfectly fine to believe all religions are man’s attempt to form a relationship with the universal God, but it seems hypocritical to also believe that your religion is somehow 100% truth and others are lesser. In my view, all religions teach some truth and some error.

Including atheism? Did you just call yourself a hypocrite?

The criticism here is that if there were a truly universal, a truly comprehensive, a truly catholic religion that aligned perfectly with God’s attempt at relationship with us, then we would expect it to arise independently in different times and places like other human things (government, marriage, trade, music, art, war, etc).

Why would you expect that when nothing else human works that way. You cite government marriage trade music art etc…All of those express the unique humanity of a unique people living in a time and place. Yet you expect some other god that violates the humanity of people. There might be some gods who are envisioned that way but it’s not the Christian God, unless you are fundamentalist.

The lack of this religion does not disprove the existence of God, but it does undermine the truth claims of each and every particular religion.

Wait a minute. You make a truth claim. Do you claim there is no God or not? You are making a claim to the truth and doing it with quite a lot of effort.
You’re not agnostic, who makes no claims, you are atheist and making a claim for the truth while undermining the case for God. Can you not see that you contradict yourself?

Now, there are several religious traditions that have arisen in very different places and times: 1) fertility cults 2) sun worship and 3) atheism. I think there is something natural, something human about all three of those. Fertility cults and sun worship are a response of awe at reproduction and the majesty and power of the sun. Atheism, I think, is the response of reason to religion.

I think you’ve already demonstrated to yourself that atheism is a religion. It’s not a mainstream Christian organized religion, but it is self evidently a belief.
Instead of believing in God it makes reason a god in a superstitious and unreasonable way.

We’re all atheists about all the gods except our own, and for good reasons too (in our opinions anyway).

Makes some sense. I don’t believe in your god.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

For the same reason that some people who have met you don’t like you as well as others. In fact only one or two might love you deeply and truthfully. If the others really knew you, they should like you. But not everyone you meet has a fulfilling relationship with you. Not everyone knows you fully. Some people only grasp part of the truth of your being, your meaning, your purpose in life, who you are. Others know you much more fully.

What? What does this have to do with whether a religion’s claims about reality are true or not?

Including atheism? Did you just call yourself a hypocrite?

Yep, I’m not an atheist, sister: I believe in God. Nope.

Why would you expect that when nothing else human works that way. You cite government marriage trade music art etc…All of those express the unique humanity of a unique people living in a time and place. Yet you expect some other god that violates the humanity of people. There might be some gods who are envisioned that way but it’s not the Christian God, unless you are fundamentalist.

No no no, the question is about truth. Math is the same everywhere. Nature is the same everywhere. Truth is the same everywhere. Religious beliefs are different everywhere. Truth does not violate the humanity of people, it just is.

Wait a minute. You make a truth claim. Do you claim there is no God or not? You are making a claim to the truth and doing it with quite a lot of effort.
You’re not agnostic, who makes no claims, you are atheist and making a claim for the truth while undermining the case for God. Can you not see that you contradict yourself?

I think you’ve already demonstrated to yourself that atheism is a religion. It’s not a mainstream Christian organized religion, but it is self evidently a belief.
Instead of believing in God it makes reason a god in a superstitious and unreasonable way.

Makes some sense. I don’t believe in your god.

I’m not an atheist, see above. Agnostics do make claims, they claim not to know. I believe in God, so I’m not an atheist. I can’t say I’m certain about anything, religiously speaking, so I’m not a fundamentalist. But, I do believe that truth should be universal. No religion is truly universal, therefore I suspect none of them are 100% true.