Should Religion...

[Zeonix]

Because most of the laws were invalidated by the new testament. Christains believe that a new covenant has been made with God through Jesus Christ. Jewish faith believes that the savior has not yet been born. That's why we have different rules and beliefs from Judaism.

Not quite. Although Christianity includes the New Testament, it continues to share the Old Testament as the authoritative word of God. It doesn't throw away the old to make room for the new. The NT is really more of an upgrade than an overhaul. Really, the only difference between the two religions is as you stated: Christians believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT prophecies of a coming messiah, while Judaism says, "Yeah, no." Jews don't believe Jesus' sacrifice (I gots to die for your sins, guys) was even necessary.

Should we take religious scripture literally? No. When people have this conversation, they really only speak about Christianity, which is lame considering how many other religions there are. Why aren't we discussing the number of women Krishna banged? Or the star wars-like battles in the Mahabharata? Because, you know, it'd be kind of silly.

I think if we stripped away the dogma and the prophets and the hate and the intolerance and the mythology, and were left only with a message in its purest form, we'd all be a lot happier. When you boil down all religions, they all pretty much state:

"Don't be a douchebag. Do no harm. Be all that you can be. Aid your fellow man. Appreciate what and who we are as a species, and who you are as an individual."

So on and so forth. All of the above is common sense. Or should be.

If you really need to add a supernatural into the mix, fine, but don't try to convince others this or that is how it really is. It's your own personal philosophy. Nothing more. If someone wants to hear about it, tell them, but make sure to also tell them to find their own path and to come to their own conclusions. Hindus aren't out there converting everyone they can. You know why? Because they're content in their beliefs. If you want to join their ranks, awesome. If you don't, that's cool too.

All roads lead to Rome, right? Surely there isn't but a single path to some kind of Source. Why would there be? That would defeat the purpose of freedom of will, and of having a Megaverse of infinite possibilities and choices. It would to me, anyway. I think if there is a supreme being, it doesn't care who we pray to, or what we believe. Ultimately, all that matters is achieving our potential as a race, as sentient beings. This would hopefuly lead someone to ask themselves what our potential is, and if we share a common endgame with every other sentient race in the Universe.

I can view God as being simply a force of nature from which all things originate or as pure consciousness. It doesn't really matter to me, and I change perspectives frequently as I think about it. What does matter is finding our way back to the source. I don't think it matters how we get there, or who we pray to, or what we believe. Just so long as we try get there without getting into everyone else's way (which, to me, would include converting, murdering, teaching hate and intolerance, etc).

 

[Brosiris]

Not quite. Although Christianity includes the New Testament, it continues to share the Old Testament as the authoritative word of God. It doesn't throw away the old to make room for the new. The NT is really more of an upgrade than an overhaul. Really, the only difference between the two religions is as you stated: Christians believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT prophecies of a coming messiah, while Judaism says, "Yeah, no." Jews don't believe Jesus' sacrifice (I gots to die for your sins, guys) was even necessary.

Should we take religious scripture literally? No. When people have this conversation, they really only speak about Christianity, which is lame considering how many other religions there are. Why aren't we discussing the number of women Krishna banged? Or the star wars-like battles in the Mahabharata? Because, you know, it'd be kind of silly.

I think if we stripped away the dogma and the prophets and the hate and the intolerance and the mythology, and were left only with a message in its purest form, we'd all be a lot happier. When you boil down all religions, they all pretty much state:

"Don't be a douchebag. Do no harm. Be all that you can be. Aid your fellow man. Appreciate what and who we are as a species, and who you are as an individual."

So on and so forth. All of the above is common sense. Or should be.

If you really need to add a supernatural into the mix, fine, but don't try to convince others this or that is how it really is. It's your own personal philosophy. Nothing more. If someone wants to hear about it, tell them, but make sure to also tell them to find their own path and to come to their own conclusions. Hindus aren't out there converting everyone they can. You know why? Because they're content in their beliefs. If you want to join their ranks, awesome. If you don't, that's cool too.

All roads lead to Rome, right? Surely there isn't but a single path to some kind of Source. Why would there be? That would defeat the purpose of freedom of will, and of having a Megaverse of infinite possibilities and choices. It would to me, anyway. I think if there is a supreme being, it doesn't care who we pray to, or what we believe. Ultimately, all that matters is achieving our potential as a race, as sentient beings. This would hopefuly lead someone to ask themselves what our potential is, and if we share a common endgame with every other sentient race in the Universe.

I can view God as being simply a force of nature from which all things originate or as pure consciousness. It doesn't really matter to me, and I change perspectives frequently as I think about it. What does matter is finding our way back to the source. I don't think it matters how we get there, or who we pray to, or what we believe. Just so long as we try get there without getting into everyone else's way (which, to me, would include converting, murdering, teaching hate and intolerance, etc).

Well said.

 

[Chakra-X]

Commenting on your point MC, "treat others as you would be treated" is the golden rule, and it carries more weight than the commandments in christianity. This ties in neatly with my interpretation of the golden rule. If you look at things this way, it would be very wrong for me to condemn anyone else on their choice of lovers, as I would not appreciate someone telling me that god doesn't like my wife.

****ing thank you. This is how I live my life. I am not an ass to people because I do not like it when people are an ass to me. I help people/ be friendly because I like it when people are like that with. Of course I can not always be like this, but if more people starting giving a **** about how they come off to others, the world would probably be a much better place to live in.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Not quite. Although Christianity includes the New Testament, it continues to share the Old Testament as the authoritative word of God. It doesn't throw away the old to make room for the new.

Not every church believes this, I certainly have a different view. And while it is the authoritive voice of god, it has been superceeded by new rules that contradict it. For instance, I wouldn't want to be stoned to death, therefore it is unlikely that I would push that punishment on someone else, even though god commands it.

 

[Zeonix]

Not every church believes this, I certainly have a different view. And while it is the authoritive voice of god, it has been superceeded by new rules that contradict it. For instance, I wouldn't want to be stoned to death, therefore it is unlikely that I would push that punishment on someone else, even though god commands it.

I think that has more to do with how society has changed than the religion itself. Some people still adhere to not eating pork, but others don't because, you know, bacon is awesome. It isn't really because Jesus said, "Let there be bacon and shellfish for everyone!"

 

[Barney]

When the Bible speaks of "God", should "God" be interpreted as a old man with a grayish-white beard, wearing white robes, sitting in the clouds, watching over everything? Or does "God" simply represent that which is beyond human comprehension?

Looking at other religions, "God" seems to be more of the latter - representation of that which is beyond human comprehension. If that were the case, then "God" is no different than "Dharma" in Buddhism or "Tao" in Taoism. All of which represent that which is beyond human comprehension, an underlying "reality" or "order" of sorts.

Likewise, when the Bible speaks of "Heaven" or "Hell", should "Heaven" be interpreted as a place of bliss in the clouds and "Hell" as a place of suffering deep below the ground? Or does "Heaven" or "Hell" simply represent an experience of bliss or suffering we experience in our everyday lives

As you all should know, I'm a modern orthodox Jew so here's my 2 cents.

To start I want to be clear that when I'm going to talk about the Bible, I'm not including the New Testament since I do not believe in it.

When it comes to understanding G-d, we can't. He doesn't have a physical form, no matter how many times it says in the Bible that he does. G-d is definitely something way, way, way, way beyond the comprehension of man so far. I think humans are selfish in thinking that G-d only loves us and the Earth, when there are millions upon billions of other stars, and even galaxies out there that have the potential to hold life. Our planet may be the "chosen planet," but I do not believe that we are the only one with life, which makes G-d even more fantastical since He reigns over the entire Universe rather then just our planet.

When talking about hell, to be honest, I think it's just something made up when Christianity started to scare the little children into not sinning. Of course sinners are not taken lightly in the afterlife. I say afterlife, because even the thought of heaven is quite incomprehensible. No one can really tell another person what will come in the afterlife. Sure we can philosophize and talk about it, but I don't think there will be a definitive answer until someone fully dies and they find out.

Short answer: No, the Bible should not be taken literally, but religion should. There many things in the Old Testament alone that are quite fantastical and are very far fetched. But that is why there are volumes of commentary made by various rabbis throughout the years (since the time of Moshe (Moses) even) in the form of Mishnah and Gemara. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud.)

Religion, no matter which one, should be a vast and deep relationship with G-d, which no one should question. I'm not saying to follow blindly to a religions customs or practices, but if you don't like it maybe you should research or learn about those practices and customs before you knock it down and denounce religion. I don't practice all aspects of Judaism perfectly, but I practice the ones that are most important to me (which is actually quite a lot of them) and I think it makes my relationship with G-d that much deeper. To be honest I think that people who don't believe in G-d are foolish because all they have to do is look around them to see that G-d exists. I don't really know what else to continue on so I'll stop there.