Religious nuts vs bolts

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Sixty years go, over half a million people were living in America's mental institutions. A common cause of admission was hearing voices -- frequently, the "voice of God."

It seems to me that people who "hear the voice of God" end up in one of two places....

-- founding religions or forwarding religious movements
-- being labeled as a nut job, and being locked up

- - - - - - - - - -

So what is the fine line that divides the nuts from the bolts?
That is a really good question. In my opinion, 99.999% of the time, the "voice of God" people are ones who should be locked up, especially if they founded a religion. Its not that I don't believe in God. I just don't believe in the God that talks to people all the time. Here is a funny joke about that:

If someone says that God talks to them, we might consider them a prophet. If someone say that God talks to them through their toaster, we would probably consider them crazy. Why does the toaster make that much difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: headbang8

B_tallbig

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Posts
984
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Location
n/a
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That is a really good question. In my opinion, 99.999% of the time, the "voice of God" people are ones who should be locked up, especially if they founded a religion. Its not that I don't believe in God. I just don't believe in the God that talks to people all the time. Here is a funny joke about that:

If someone says that God talks to them, we might consider them a prophet. If someone say that God talks to them through their toaster, we would probably consider them crazy. Why does the toaster make that much difference?​
But how we know for sure that the remaining 1 percent are legit cases.
What if Buddha , Jesus , Mohammed and others were crazy guys?
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Excellent point, Italian978. And substantiated by the fact that there are currently only about 52,000 institutionalized people in America.

- - - - -

Yes, Earllogjam -- people ARE better off believing in something. Death is scary. Beliefs make it easier to live side by side with death.

- - - -

I agree, TB and JA -- I won't point any fingers, because that wouldn't be fair, but perhaps some religions would have never come to pass if the founder had gone in for a psychiatric evaluation when he first started preaching?

- - - - -

And maybe fifty or a hundred religions never came to pass because the founder didn't have time to gather a following before being locked up...
 

headbang8

Admired Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Posts
1,618
Media
12
Likes
809
Points
333
Location
Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
So what is the fine line that divides the nuts from the bolts?
There isn't one.

If a god exists, he doesn't talk to us. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

Here's what used to be considered "normal". People would read--the bible, works of literature, philosophy. They would look at the world around them. They would interact with other people, be sensitive to them and learn what makes them tick. They would spend time in reflection and contemplation--some of them called this "prayer". They would become wise. In so doing, they would arrive at a belief about what the creator of the universe intended, about what constitutes good and evil.

God didn't speak to people in words on a page; He spoke in the beauty of a flower, the plaintive cry of a newborn, the power of storms and earthquakes that needed respect. He showed us order and inevitability in the succession of day and night, and the progress of the seasons. He taught that bounty can be folowed by famine, and so to be grateful for that bounty when it occurs.

Religion was an organic part of life. It seldom needed to be spoken of.

Alas, in the modern era, we don't spend quite so much of our headspace in the physical world. In fact, life in our imagination seems much more real to us than the life we live on planet Earth.

As a culture, we are no longer grounded in fact. The most appealing fiction becomes the truth, the most appealing actor our president or governor. Gratitude for nature's bounty is meaningless when a Twinkie costs 29 cents.

The dividing line between fact and fiction has become blurred. God in my head? Sure. Why the hell not? No crazier than the Great Kazoo on The Flintstones. And The Flinststones are as real as the Six O'Clock News, are they not? They're both on TV.

No wonder our current culture creates more religious insanity. If you learn values from the dancing light box in the corner of your living room, then any loopy, unhinged thought that half makes sense is as good a philosophy as any. If it makes good television, it must be good.

As an athiest, I found I didn't need a god to come to a conclusion about what's good and bad, or about the purpose fo life. But I did need to go though the spiritual process of becoming wise through experience and reflection, just like they did many generations ago. The written and spoken word helped, but far more important was my lived experience and genuine spiritual connection with others.

If we no longer have that grounding to help us work out what's real and what ain't, then fantasy is just as real as reality.

HB8

P.S. Interesting thought: Atheists and theologians write books. Fundies start their own TV networks.
 

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
There isn't one.

If a god exists, he doesn't talk to us. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

God didn't speak to people in words on a page;

P.S. Interesting thought: Atheists and theologians write books. Fundies start their own TV networks.
According to Genesis 8, verse15 God spoke to Noah. God also spoke to Abraham and to Moses (although it was from a burning bush- yeah, that sounds real and I'm Garson Kanin). In Genesis 3 we find God saying to Cain: "Where is Abel your brother?"

In the old testament at least God seemed to spend a great deal of time talking with all the stars. (amazing how he never seemed to talk with one of those many beget individuals)
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There isn't one.

If a god exists, he doesn't talk to us. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

Here's what used to be considered "normal". People would read--the bible, works of literature, philosophy. They would look at the world around them. They would interact with other people, be sensitive to them and learn what makes them tick. They would spend time in reflection and contemplation--some of them called this "prayer". They would become wise. In so doing, they would arrive at a belief about what the creator of the universe intended, about what constitutes good and evil.

God didn't speak to people in words on a page; He spoke in the beauty of a flower, the plaintive cry of a newborn, the power of storms and earthquakes that needed respect. He showed us order and inevitability in the succession of day and night, and the progress of the seasons. He taught that bounty can be folowed by famine, and so to be grateful for that bounty when it occurs.

Religion was an organic part of life. It seldom needed to be spoken of.

Alas, in the modern era, we don't spend quite so much of our headspace in the physical world. In fact, life in our imagination seems much more real to us than the life we live on planet Earth.

As a culture, we are no longer grounded in fact. The most appealing fiction becomes the truth, the most appealing actor our president or governor. Gratitude for nature's bounty is meaningless when a Twinkie costs 29 cents.

The dividing line between fact and fiction has become blurred. God in my head? Sure. Why the hell not? No crazier than the Great Kazoo on The Flintstones. And The Flinststones are as real as the Six O'Clock News, are they not? They're both on TV.

No wonder our current culture creates more religious insanity. If you learn values from the dancing light box in the corner of your living room, then any loopy, unhinged thought that half makes sense is as good a philosophy as any. If it makes good television, it must be good.

As an athiest, I found I didn't need a god to come to a conclusion about what's good and bad, or about the purpose fo life. But I did need to go though the spiritual process of becoming wise through experience and reflection, just like they did many generations ago. The written and spoken word helped, but far more important was my lived experience and genuine spiritual connection with others.

If we no longer have that grounding to help us work out what's real and what ain't, then fantasy is just as real as reality.

HB8

P.S. Interesting thought: Atheists and theologians write books. Fundies start their own TV networks.

HB,
A very profound post, HB. Some people say that one of the greatest gifts from the Jewish religion (cum Christianity) is the notion of a God that has no physical presence in the world. Having no icons to pray to and worship, God is driven into the abstract, rather than the immediately present God of the ancients dwelling in every tree and rock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: headbang8

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But how we know for sure that the remaining 1 percent are legit cases.
What if Buddha , Jesus , Mohammed and others were crazy guys?
You don't! That's the difference between religion and empiricism. There are no verifications that can be made on theological assertions.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
The saints truly hear the voice of God.

The insane only think they hear the voice of God.

Yes, but the litmus test is this: Who decides which voice is which? Who decides which voice is heavenly or otherwise.

DW suggested that it depends on whether or not someone can get people to BELIEVE them.

And to build on that concept, what is the quorum -- how many people does a nut/legit have to have believing in them before they are "bona fide" ?

1 person?

A thousand?
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, but the litmus test is this: Who decides which voice is which? Who decides which voice is heavenly or otherwise.

DW suggested that it depends on whether or not someone can get people to BELIEVE them.

And to build on that concept, what is the quorum -- how many people does a nut/legit have to have believing in them before they are "bona fide" ?

1 person?

A thousand?

That depends on which sect/denomination one wishes to embrace one's dogma and revelations. For Catholics, the pope is required (eventually). For most Protestants, it could well start with one true believer and spread from there.

We also seem to be leaving Moslems out of this, and they're some of the biggest nuts on the Fundamentalist tree.

My own bottom line: The sum total of our life's force does not communicate in words, rather in emotions, sensations and inspirations. I have felt a variety of close experiences with something beyond me, but a "personal" deity, speaking in English? Never have, don't believe it works that way.
 

headbang8

Admired Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Posts
1,618
Media
12
Likes
809
Points
333
Location
Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
My own bottom line: The sum total of our life's force does not communicate in words, rather in emotions, sensations and inspirations. I have felt a variety of close experiences with something beyond me, but a "personal" deity, speaking in English? Never have, don't believe it works that way.
Quite.
 

southwest

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Posts
537
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I think if someone was hearing God, then God being at least a metaphor for the Highest principal, the person concerned would act in a very informed and intelligent way. If this were the case that individual would/may inspire people around him/her to act via these same principals. This in my eyes would be no bad thing.
If on the other hand the person is imagining God talking to them, given that they are in a mentally confused state to think God is talking to them in the first place, I think probably their actions would be quite different.
Jesus never quoted from the new testament(obviously it didn't exist at that point), he was an independent.(that's if you believe Jesus existed at all)
I think that people who say they are talking to God but only quote from the bible are in my eyes dubious.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
And to build on that concept, what is the quorum -- how many people does a nut/legit have to have believing in them before they are "bona fide" ?

1 person?

A thousand?

Twelve seems a good number.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
....
Why does the toaster make that much difference?

To follow on from that; if a God (if such a thing exists) wanted to communicate with us mortals, it seems logical that he would choose to use one or more of us mortals to do so - yet he would do so in the sure (all knowing) certainty that they would be branded odd at best and insane at worst and almost universally ostracised - other than by other similarly 'misguided' folk of course.

Of course one may argue that he does it this way because he is testing our faith - that if we were to just believe what these people were saying then all would be well. Naturally that's what we would expect such people to say. So the fact that we don't believe them should be equally expected. Yet despite this, God keeps trying the same method?

It seems to me that at the very least, God requires a new communications strategy.
 

B_tallbig

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Posts
984
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Location
n/a
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That depends on which sect/denomination one wishes to embrace one's dogma and revelations. For Catholics, the pope is required (eventually). For most Protestants, it could well start with one true believer and spread from there.

We also seem to be leaving Moslems out of this, and they're some of the biggest nuts on the Fundamentalist tree.

My own bottom line: The sum total of our life's force does not communicate in words, rather in emotions, sensations and inspirations. I have felt a variety of close experiences with something beyond me, but a "personal" deity, speaking in English? Never have, don't believe it works that way.
I dont think is wise to catholics to obey a pope that looks oddly similar to palpatine .:biggrin1::biggrin1:
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
To follow on from that; if a God (if such a thing exists) wanted to communicate with us mortals, it seems logical that he would choose to use one or more of us mortals to do so - yet he would do so in the sure (all knowing) certainty that they would be branded odd at best and insane at worst and almost universally ostracised - other than by other similarly 'misguided' folk of course.

Of course one may argue that he does it this way because he is testing our faith - that if we were to just believe what these people were saying then all would be well. Naturally that's what we would expect such people to say. So the fact that we don't believe them should be equally expected.

dong,
If you study the OT, you see that people were at their worst behavior when presented with tangible evidence of the presence of God. For example, during Exodus, when following the pillar of smoke that was supposed to be God guiding them, when waiting for Moses to bring the tablets, etc.

In the NT, faith wasn't much more of a commodity. Those who walked in the presence of Jesus bolted at the last moment, not without that already being anticipated by Jesus. St. Paul is quite clear that we are all pretty much failures when it comes to faith, and furthermore, our faith itself is a gift from God. As Paul works up his thesis on necessity for God's Grace he quotes from the OT on the general nature of man's faith:

'What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off?[b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both(N) Jews and(O) Greeks, are(P) under sin, 10as it is written:

(Q) "None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13(R) "Their throat is(S) an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
(T) "The venom of asps is under their lips."
14(U) "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15(V) "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and(W) the way of peace they have not known."
18(X) "There is no fear of God before their eyes."'

- Romans 3:9-18
As you can see, Paul has a dim view of anyone's claim to faith. He goes on to develop the notion that although the "wages" of this should be death (loss of eternal life), God, knowing what rat bastards he created, has no choice but to declare us all incompetent to stand trial. Instead of death, according to Paul in Romans, we get Jesus, who is the embodiment of Grace (unconditional love and forgiveness).

Contrary to what most people think about "faith", the Bible is much more about God's faith in man, than it is about man's faith in God.

As such, I think the notion that God does things (especially bad things) to test our faith is ridiculous. If he were doing that, again, I would be lined up with jason_el with my burning torch and pitchfork waiting to string God up from the nearest tree.

So I do agree with you that if God was to speak to someone, it would be such that no one would believe it, but not because he is testing our faith. It is more because we are worse off when presented with tangible evidence of God than without. We seem to do better out of our fragile faith.

Yet despite this, God keeps trying the same method?

It seems to me that at the very least, God requires a new communications strategy.

However, there is nothing in the NT about God continuing to use a method of speaking to people directly. That kind of thing dies out slowly as you progress through the books of the Bible. In Genesis, man is walking around with God in the garden of Eden, but moving through the books, God seems to slowly withdraw from having any tangible presence in the world, until he pops directly into history in the form of a human, Jesus.

Then, as Jesus makes his final (first) exit, he leaves with us a manifestation from God that is called the Holy Spirit, which never ever speaks at anytime in the NT. The Holy Spirit is called a lot of things in the NT, such as "advocate", "helper", "teacher", etc. But never is it implied that the spirit talks to people.

Finally, consider his appearance in the form of Jesus. While the Jews are expecting a warrior king savior to come and set the world right with power and might, instead we get God in the form of a helpless mewling baby born to an ignorant unwed teenage mother in a pig trough. He grows up presumably suffering all the potential for evil that jason_el is talking about, and finally submitting to that evil to die a painful nasty death as his organs shut down one by one hanging there in horrible pain while nailed to a board. Jesus might as well be the kid that jason was referring to.

There is something timelessly profound in Jesus' helplessness and here is where we have to look for understanding of God's attitude towards suffering and evil, and the use (or lack of use) of his divine power to prevent it.

During Jesus' life, he does a few cheesy miracles that are not much more than parlor tricks if you consider that he is The Creator incarnate. Since he foresees all of what is going to happen, and he chooses to do the Jesus thing voluntarily, it is a clear and resounding signal that although God has created the universe, he is voluntarily self-limiting his influence on it physically. The Greek term for it is Kenosis. Rather than smiting enemies and righting the wrongs of Roman political oppression, curing all diseases for ever, ending all hunger, instead he starts a viral marketing campaign to prepare mankind to be his hands and feet in the name of love then he lets mankind string him up for it.

Again, there is something important here. It's as if God is saying, "hey, do you want to know what I think about the universe's natural processes, scary as they might be? Well, let me demonstrate to you my high regard by emptying out all of my power and submitting myself to it at its complete worst. Let me become human like you, let me suffer like you, let me die horribly like you could possibly do. Why? Because I love the universe and I love life, and I love you, more than you could possibly imagine. I know you won't believe me, so let me demonstrate my regard for it by submitting to it. I can't explain it to you, so I will sacrifice myself to it as a demonstration. Furthermore, know now that I am a God that suffers as each creature in his creation suffers. Also know, that in the end, as I rose from the dead, that in conquering death, I am saying that there is no more pure evil. Everything bad has the potential for good. Suffering may be a part of it, but accept my promise that there is a point where it all ends and there are "no more tears... and the lion shall lie down with the lamb..." (Revelation)."

This is a much better answer than God gives Job, when Job is lying in the mud with his skin falling off, echoing jason_el's words, demanding what kind of a God would allow a universe where such suffering was possible. Like his answer to Job, and like the example of his life in the form of Jesus, he is trying to say that you won't ever understand it, but this world is so astonishing wonderful in God's eyes that any alternative form of it would be pointless. Any meaningful world in terms of human life, anyway, must have the potential for contigency. That naturally leaves open the potential for suffering, but only because you can't have any kind of life without the capacity for some form of choice, some amount of free-will, etc.
 

B_averageaverage

Just Browsing
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Posts
7
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Finally, consider his appearance in the form of Jesus. While the Jews are expecting a warrior king savior to come and set the world right with power and might, instead we get God in the form of a helpless mewling baby born to an ignorant unwed teenage mother in a pig trough. He grows up presumably suffering all the potential for evil that jason_el is talking about, and finally submitting to that evil to die a painful nasty death as his organs shut down one by one hanging there in horrible pain while nailed to a board. Jesus might as well be the kid that jason was referring to.

There is something timelessly profound in Jesus' helplessness and here is where we have to look for understanding of God's attitude towards suffering and evil, and the use (or lack of use) of his divine power to prevent it.

During Jesus' life, he does a few cheesy miracles that are not much more than parlor tricks if you consider that he is The Creator incarnate. Since he foresees all of what is going to happen, and he chooses to do the Jesus thing voluntarily, it is a clear and resounding signal that although God has created the universe, he is voluntarily self-limiting his influence on it physically. The Greek term for it is Kenosis. Rather than smiting enemies and righting the wrongs of Roman political oppression, curing all diseases for ever, ending all hunger, instead he starts a viral marketing campaign to prepare mankind to be his hands and feet in the name of love then he lets mankind string him up for it.

Again, there is something important here. It's as if God is saying, "hey, do you want to know what I think about the universe's natural processes, scary as they might be? Well, let me demonstrate to you my high regard by emptying out all of my power and submitting myself to it at its complete worst. Let me become human like you, let me suffer like you, let me die horribly like you could possibly do. Why? Because I love the universe and I love life, and I love you, more than you could possibly imagine. I know you won't believe me, so let me demonstrate my regard for it by submitting to it. I can't explain it to you, so I will sacrifice myself to it as a demonstration. Furthermore, know now that I am a God that suffers as each creature in his creation suffers. Also know, that in the end, as I rose from the dead, that in conquering death, I am saying that there is no more pure evil. Everything bad has the potential for good. Suffering may be a part of it, but accept my promise that there is a point where it all ends and there are "no more tears... and the lion shall lie down with the lamb..." (Revelation)."

This is a much better answer than God gives Job, when Job is lying in the mud with his skin falling off, echoing jason_el's words, demanding what kind of a God would allow a universe where such suffering was possible. Like his answer to Job, and like the example of his life in the form of Jesus, he is trying to say that you won't ever understand it, but this world is so astonishing wonderful in God's eyes that any alternative form of it would be pointless. Any meaningful world in terms of human life, anyway, must have the potential for contigency. That naturally leaves open the potential for suffering, but only because you can't have any kind of life without the capacity for some form of choice, some amount of free-will, etc.
Great post.