Love one another
Do not steal
Do not kill
Do not lie
Treat others like you'd like to be treated
Honor your father and mother
Don't worship golden calves (money and other things of value)
You are your brother's keeper.

That pretty much covers it.

in all cultures, really, except, perhaps the one about golden calves and other idols.

They're not unique to any particular religion, but are standards developed by humans interacting with each other. They're based on evidence of what works best.

Whatever your religion or cultural background, you're likely to have all of those rules in place.

They don't need any superstitious faith to learn or implement.

People figure stuff out. We're very smart monkeys.

misogyny, homophobia, for starters. All sorts of rules demanding slaughter.

And it ain't just the OT that has this problem, although it has a lot of ethical problems.

Luke in 19:27 basically has god commanding the slaughter of all that will not believe in him. The best the 'splainers can come with is that this bit of horrendous sectarian tribalism really means that "all mankind will one day face the judgment of God. Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished."

So the dressed up version just has all the filthy unbelievers being tortured for eternity by their all loving god.

Your simplistic view of religion and faith is not shared by the vast majority of people on earth.

My view is not "simplistic," either. You are misusing the word, and badly.

Widespread education, free speech, equal opportunities for women, access to birth control, and stable political/economic climate are present in societies with growing atheistic movements, but in many Islamic societies, some or all are missing. How many atheists live in Saudi Arabia but are afraid to say anything for fear of their lives?

They are often silent in their disbelief. Some value the social aspects of church life and don't really bother with the rest. I disagree with their silence, but I'm not one to insist that everyone speak out, really.

I suspect the number of atheists in pulpits on any given Sunday is much higher than anyone things, as well. While it seems contradictory to reason, some continue to fill roles they no longer fit, long after they know they no longer fit the role.

I've known a few such people. Privately, to someone they trust, they sometimes reveal their contradiction. Occasionally, one leaves the role and expresses him or herself, but that's pretty rare. More often, such people quietly retire from their positions and move out of the religious life.

A very few, however, have risen to high places in some denominations. How those manage their internal conflicts, I have no idea. I know one such person, who shall always remain unnamed.

If they don't believe, they don't go to church. But that leaves behind a hard-core group of isolated believers. Not surprising they feel themselves losing their grip on society.

which is aging congregations. It has been noticed for some time, and gets discussed a lot among church people.

Despite media mouthings about growth rates.

I am aware of it. It does not account for things like cultures where leaving the dominant religion is apostasy that carries the death penalty.

It also 'signals' something that isn't necessarily meaningful. If the increase is birth rate, because people are simply 'in' the religion in those countries, it doesn't really say anything about Islam or Christianity 'spreading' or converting new people. Ignoring birth rates and looking at actual conversions paints a different story.

The conversions aren't even very durable, it seems, in countries without blasphemy/apostasy laws. https://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/05/confessions-ex-muslimv


there are also issues with estimation and international reporting of estimates.
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interfax-religion.com%2F%3Fact%3Dnews%26div%3D2869&date=2011-04-16

When it's off by tens of millions, there's a problem with the estimates. PEW is pretty good, but can only do so much with what they have, via the methodology used.

See how belief works?

I bet you didn't look at Pew Research methodology and supporting data, did you?

No. It wouldn't confirm your bias, would it?

"2000 years and no new god!"

was the reaction of my USAF Basic Training Sergeant when he discovered my copy of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" in my footlocker on the first day of Basic. I had bought it at the LAX airport to read on the plane heading to Lackland AFB, and didn't finish it, of course. So, it was a "personal item" in that footlocker.

The drill Sgt. saw it, picked up and shouted in my face, "What the hell is this, boy? You some sort of Communist?" I said, "No, Sergeant. It's just a novel I'm reading." He put it back and moved on to harass some other poor kid.

Keep up the good work!

...that my father gave me a few days before I left home.

It didn't go over very well with SSGT Brentham. He was not amused.

To this day I still believe the old man set me up on purpose, the joker.

I was so naive and trusting back then.

Some of those occurrences are explainable as natural phenomena, such as the "manna" that fed the Israelites - it was probably a resin or honeydew that appears on certain plants in the region - or the "burning bush," most likely the fraxinella plant, which exudes a volatile substance that can actually ignite in hot weather. Other so-called miracles would have been imagined, misunderstood, or just made up. Jesus didn't walk on water or turn water into wine (which would have been an awesome party trick), but years after he died the writers of the Gospels wanted to demonstrate his divinity so they claimed that he did things that everyone knew were impossible.

But that isn't really the point. Of course most natural phenomena that were not understood 3,000 years ago are understood and explained now (but we still don't know exactly how gravity works). People who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God nevertheless do believe Jesus actually walked on water and raised people from the dead (those people probably were just very sick and not dead at all), and the burning bush burned without being consumed and an angel appeared in it, but all those so-called miracles are believed to be evidence of God revealing himself and causing people to believe or to act. The ultimate miracle, of course, was the resurrection of Jesus, which, if it had not occurred, would have blown up the whole premise of Christianity.

You, can, however (and IMO should) take the Bible and other ancient texts like the Bhagavad-Gita, the Upanishads, the Q'uran, and even the Eddas, as not necessarily historical, but nonetheless important for the study of humanity's development of philosophies and ethics. There is a great deal of wisdom to be found in these old writings along with the superstitions. In her book The Great Transformation, the theologian Karen Armstrong posits that during the period from about 3000 to 900 BC, the major religions at the time all gradually developed theologies that urged people to practice compassion and altruism. Variants of the Golden Rule appeared in all of these religions during this period. Armstrong believes that the sages and priests all figured out, perhaps independently of each other, that the constant warfare and general bloodletting was destructive and evil and contrary to the will of whatever "god" was. It's an interesting read.

In any event, you can dismiss the Bible as an irrelevant collection of the ancient myths and legends of an extinct Iron Age culture, or you can look at it as a fascinating artefact in the study of cultural anthropology. There can be no doubt that it has had an enormous influence on our modern culture, so I prefer the latter approach.

Yes, it has influenced Western culture enormously. As such, it is worthy of study. So, I have studied it.

important. There is nothing much of interest in the history of philosophy in the bible.

it's whether the Bible contains any interesting insights into the way people thought about the world at the time. I believe it does. I don't think it's the word of God, if such a being even exists, but I don't think it lacks value in the overall history of human thought. It was the product of many different writers in different places throughout a long period of time, so there's not much in the way of any evolution of a single philosophical thread, beyond Karen Armstrong's general observation - so you really can't compare it to any coherent development of the philosophy of, say, Aristotle. Apples and oranges, or maybe sushi and pork chops.

So little of the bible is actually original it's like using Twilight as your source for vampire fiction. Why read about Noah when you can read about Utnapishtim or Ziusudra, for example? If you're exploring the human condition, IMO you have to bypass the bible and go straight to the source material. If you're narrowing your field down to Semitic history, I suppose it has some value, but even then you have to read the originals to make a comment on why this fan-fiction version got all those readers.

Like the Bible, it's a collection of stories and not a single work, and it has both Akkadian and Babylonian sources which are not identical. It includes a sort of Garden of Eden story and a flood story (one of many ancient flood stories); most historians believe that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about a flood that was said to have occurred in Mesopotamia, but the details diverge in the retelling. Neither is an "original" work, and neither is "better" than the other. In fact, it's pretty impossible to claim originality for any ancient source because most of these works are simply written descriptions of much older traditional stories.

And I'd say with quite a bit of confidence that Utnapishtim actually is better literature than the Noah story. We're frankly lucky to have what we have after generations of christians attempted to destroy the originals to prevent people noticing the plagiarism, and largely succeeded.

In any event, the question stands: Why read later fan fiction for a glimpse of the human condition? The bible is sheer gibberish in large parts, with a deity suffering from multiple personality disorder doing wacky stuff like giving the same plot of land to the same family three different times because it's just a hodge-podge of every story they could steal thrown in a pot. Going back to the source material, or at least a coherent earlier ripoff says more about the human condition than a jumbled mess. The bible is simply not the best vehicle for those stories. If you're following the Semitic tribes, or looking at its subsequent impact on history, that's one thing, but for literary merit it's among the worst choices available.

It's pretty much a fail on all levels.

And that's not the point anyhow. The King James Bible contains many instances of truly majestic (English) language, but the KJV translation was often inaccurate. I have no idea whether any of these stories as originally written down had "literary merit" because I don't know Hebrew or any of the other languages in which they first appeared (generally Aramaic and Greek). There isn't even agreement among the various religious traditions, Jewish/Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox, regarding which stories should have been included. And each religion recognizes a somewhat different Bible, with different translations.

Even so, I don't think many scholars and historians would agree with your position that the Bible has no literary or historical value.

Scholars and historians with full access to the alternatives, done with fewer translations or even in the original language, tended to regard the judeo-christian offering quite poorly compared to the alternatives. Overwhelmingly so, even.

Granted, they've been dead for a while now, and the alternatives were deliberately obliterated (by somebody...for some reason...) in the interim, but it's worth remembering that the only people who ever lived who had a truly educated view of the relative merits of the works in question found the bible lacking.

And I've been clear that I give the bible exactly as much historical value as books like Mein Kampf or Das Kapital: It inspired movements which shaped history and needs to be read to understand those movements. I'm just saying its plot isn't as good as Das Kapital's, nor is its history as accurate as Mein Kampf's.

thanks!

Jesus saves. send $$ because god needs money, apparently lots of it

So you better watch out and you better not cry.

You posed this question:

Can an Iron Age Religion Survive Internet Age Technology?

Why not ask also:
Can an Iron Age Religion Survive Internet Age Technology?
Can an Iron Age Religion Survive Steam Age Technology?
Can an Iron Age Religion Survive Coal Age Technology?
Can an Iron Age Religion Survive Electric Age Technology?
Can an Iron Age Religion Survive Nuclear Age Technology?

The answer, of course, is yes, it can, because the wisdom is timeless.

In my view, this musing depends on a complete denial of the non-overlapping magisteria theory to have any hope of coherence.

And to this question I gave an answer.

Perhaps many centuries in the future, in a golden age of humanity where there is no religion, our ancestors can congratulate themselves that violence and hatred have been eliminated.

Now THAT is imaginary thinking at its best because it requires one to ignore all of human history.

boring.

to your preferred narrative. I understand that you apparently prefer to be a literalist.

You made a specific claim, namely that your religion's "wisdom is timeless."

When asked what that wisdom is, you declined to provide any info, and instead attacked the person asking you a simple question.

Very telling.

It was a statement framed as a question.

What is the "wisdom" your religion provides?

framed as a question.

Swing and a miss again.

I understand why you won't answer, though.

correctly.

There are deeper meanings.

http://billmoyers.com/content/ep-6-joseph-campbell-and-the-power-of-myth-masks-of-eternity-audio/

when they were first broadcast. I am questioning only the religious component here, along with its relevance today.

That you look too narrowly. If you look at the literal then of course religion is obsolete. But you don't have be limited to the literal. You can look for the deeper relevance.

Yes we know much more than any and all Bronze Age characters but we came from Bronze Age characters. Our religion today should not be what it was to our ancestors. We are supposed to evolve. Few Roman ruins are used for their original purpose yet we preserve those ruins because we learn and gain perspective. It is part.of our heritage. It is part of our culture.

And actually, modern physics looks an awful lot like Eastern religion.

Clearly, I think all references to deities, supernatural events and non-physical things, places or concepts are utter nonsense. All believers in religions like Christianity accept some of those things as literal truth. Even those here calling some atheists literalists.

I am not the literalist here. I think it is all literally hogwash, which is why I cannot envision religion's survival for much longer.

Apparently, you misunderstand my argument.

Is in a story I read about a Mormon who started researching his own religion on the internet - while there are plenty of anti-Mormon crazy stuff out there, he was able to sift through it but was still aghast with what he came up with, asking himself, "Are we really supposed to believe this and that?" etc. He asked some of his church elders who verified them as beliefs, and he immediately left the church. I don't know if he became an outright atheist or not, but I think this indicates that the internet is most likely a factor in the number of people becoming atheists or "nones." Not only are they exposed to what their religion is really about, but they're faced - most often for the first time - criticism of even the most basic church doctrine that they never thought to question before. With a larger atheist presence on the internet, people are seeing that they're not automatically bad people while at the same time, they are shown minster after minister who either preaches hate, hypocritically participates in activities that he preaches against, or is all about enriching himself. The Millenials are the first generation of people to always have some sort of access to the internet - and they're the ones rejecting religion the most. Coincidence? Eh, maybe. What the hell do I know? But I don't think so.

TlalocW

My points in the OP. Thanks.

Jesus said nothing that can't be interpreted consistently with modern science, I believe. The other stuff, like Jesus raising the dead, casting out demons and even rising from the dead himself are probably mythological additions, that can be, interpreted as such. But I am fascinated with what Jesus seems to have really said as is distilled in what is known as the "Q Source." Even the old testament has certain spiritual principles from which we can learn, just as do certain Greek myths and plays, but that doesn't require literal-ism to be a source of learning and spiritual change.

I personally believe that from axial age and post axial age spirituality (not necessarily the religions themselves) we can glean certain fundamental principles. I believe a new spirituality is arising in some quarters not tied to the literal acceptance of the mythology. The Prayer of St. Francis was posted today, for example, and that prayer, along with certain other prayers and practices, have yielded undeniable changes in me for the better. Does one have to believe in God? I don't know. I just know what works for me.

Fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim or other is fighting the change, but I believe that is because there is a deep underlying understanding that it is likely to die out in the modern world. Violent death throes, or at least so I hope.

to cope with advances in science and our understanding of the universe. It does not deal with those things. That Prayer of St. Francis could easily be recast into humanistic terms.

That scriptures offer rules for interacting with society and individuals has little to do with gods or other supernatural things. Those rules are easily derived from observation and thought. And they have been so derived. In fact, since they are so universal in scriptures of various religions, they provide evidence that the religions are creations of humans, rather than the converse.

For me, all of those rules derive from the concept of reciprocity. By reflecting on how we, as individuals, prefer to be treated, the rules for dealing with others are easily derived. All the rest is mere verbiage.

And sometimes faith helps bridge the gap. Whether that is psychology or a God-sense, I don't know, I just know what works for me.

In other words, as some Buddhists say, the longest distance can be between the head and the heart. There is an interesting article in yesterday's NY Times that talks about how, when it comes to keeping our new years resolution, sheer will power almost always fails us. It says that rather than adopting a rigid behavior, we need to adopt the right attitude, such as gratitude. My faith helps me with that.

I found that in order to change some very destructive habits and behaviors I had to find Power greater than myself. In my case, a faith in a loving God worked. It can be done, I believe, without the Bronze and Iron Age mythology and without the proselytizing of fundamental religions. I dare not say, however that everyone needs religion, or a God to live a life that is happy, well directed and free. I just think there is something in some of us that makes faith both practical and helpful. I don't think we will have to throw the baby without the bathwater.

It works on multiple levels. However, the heart is not involved in thought at all. It is incapable of contributing to your thinking.

Understanding how the brain works, helps in changing behavior, of course. It just doesn't work the way you think it does. It's not an external "higher power" that helps you break a bad habit or change some noxious behavioral pattern. It's entirely a construct you create in your own thinking patterns. You can call it whatever you like, but the change does not depend in any way on external factors, except as you use them to alter your own patterns.

Neuroscience and psychology can explain that process pretty well, although it can be hard to turn that information into effective results.

You make changes in yourself. How you do that may be unique to you, but it is done internally. Use what works for you, but recognize that you are making the changes, and you'll get better results in the long run.

And maybe there is a "mental trick" involved. But if so, I think it has survived with some evolutionary advantage or it wouldn't be so prevalent in mankind. I am in touch with something, and I see it work, and I don't believe your assertion that I would "get better results" is anything more than conjecture. I see a lot of failures coming out of the world of psychology. Not saying psychology is bad, I believe the opposite, but I am saying spirituality can have a place as well.

I believe religion will survive if it is allowed to more spiritual and less traditionally religious, and we let go of trying to use it (as with any of our personal beliefs) to try to control others.

So casting demons into swine, and sending them off a cliff - scientific, eh?

I thought I addressed that.

And the question remains.

How do you *KNOW* which parts to take seriously, and which to reject?

Do you have an external reference point by which you judge the veracity of biblical claims?

It is a source scholars (some believers some not) created from the Gospels which are the common threads believed to have come from the original source. They come down to nothing more than the sayings of Jesus. I believe in the spiritual principles embodied in those sayings and parables. The same goes for Buddha where we can trace his original teachings without getting caught up in some of the miraculous stories that came later.

I am not defending the miracle stories, I am saying I believe there are fundamental approaches to a spiritual practice that can survive without having to take the mythology literally. Mythology, however, can convey spiritual messages without having to be read literally (see, e.g., Joseph Campbell). That is where I believe modern religion will ultimately evolve towards.

You just know. Somehow.

"Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all."
"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
"First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Shall I go on?

You seem to be missing my whole point for the sake of finding an argument.

You *imagine* those things are the true words of your Jesus fellow because you like them. Not because a god actually came up with them. If we could all put the silly alleged teachings of gods aside, the arguments about WHICH of the teachings are the TRUE teachings would end and we could get on with living by the best rules and advice based on what humans have come up with ON THEIR OWN.

But whatever, Jesus is great and awesome and you know what he really said and everyone else is wrong. Silly me.

I don't need to be constantly told what others think about "silly" religions. The OP asked if an Iron Aged religion can survive with modern technology. I expressed that I believe it that it will have to evolve to survive. I know you don't believe in Religion, that has been made clear many times before. Not every post is about your problems with religion.

Have a nice day though.

I tried to explain my position, but you insult and dismiss it as "my" problem with religion. Why not explain to me what's wrong? Why not tell me how you know what's real in the bible and what's not?

Would have been nice to get an actual reply, but if an insult works better for how you think Christians should behave, fine.

I didn't intend an insult anywhere in my reply. If you took it that way, I apologize. It's just that I would like to be able to discuss religion on here without everything becoming the same tired argument on whether or not religion is "silly," as you think it is. (that's not insulting language?).

I will try to answer your question though. Spirituality can be more about not having the answer than having it. Talmudic scholars have argued about the meanings of their scriptures for centuries, and that is not only accepted, but encouraged. I find peace, joy and wholeness in the seeking, which never ends. Each time I come to a personal understanding, the more enriched I become. The greatest Buddha masters today will tell you they never quite reach Brahman (complete enlightenment) status. Religion does not have to be dogmatic, and often it has not been. I don't believe in cyclops or satyrs, but I can understand basic truths about the human condition from Greek mythology. My point is that if religion moves away from ardent, literal dogmatic beliefs, I believe can survive.

I didn't say religion is silly.

What I said was: "the silly alleged teachings of gods".

Do you not agree that a prohibition against eating shellfish is silly? How about forbidding men from sleeping together? Or do you think those are good rules? Do you follow them?

Argue honestly instead of painting me as some ridiculous caricature of a religion hater.

You said:

"My point is that if religion moves away from ardent, literal dogmatic beliefs, I believe can survive."

Like the ardent, literal dogmatic belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead? Do you believe that one?

It's a core belief of every branch of Christianity I know of. It's part of the basic creeds of almost every Christian denomination. Yet, many have great difficulty admitting believe in that bit of doctrine.

I can't imagine why that would be, frankly. It makes me wonder a great deal.

It's also why, the harder you press for an answer, the more responses you get start to resemble the ones I have been getting. 'OMG, you called religion silly you hateful atheist who has personal problems with religion!'

It's because answering that question involves taking a swing at the foundational pillars of their belief system. Evil LITERALISTS are the problem - the people who take too much of the bible literally. But not me, the parts I take literally are the good parts. Don't make me think about how I know they are the good parts because I might start to see that I judge the bible based on my own sense of morality, which means that maybe my morals aren't based on this book after all and then maybe I don't really believe in my religion and.... SHIELDS UP!!! ATTACK!!!!

*sigh*

Easier to be right when you argue for the other side. You arent getting the answers you want and I am sorry that frustrates you.

"Thanks for completely mischaracterizing what I said"

And the same to you, pal. I'm sure it's much easier to just dismiss me as a religion hater, and claim that I said things that I clearly didn't. So much for your superior spirituality.

But I don't see how my personal beliefs come into a discussion about the future of religion.

Anyway, I have repeatedly said that I am not a literalist, so why do you keep asking me about literal interpretations of the Bible? I have not advocated adherence to Bronze Age dietary laws. I have not said I follow any particular religious dogma. It is the letting go of those things that I am advocating would make religion more likely to survive in the future. I don't go to church but I read all sorts of spiritual things from all faiths and practices and have formed my own conception of God. I believe that whether you call it "religion" or spiritual practices, that is the kind of spirituality that I believe can survive into the future. Look into, for example, Universal Unitarianism.

You might not take the dietary laws literally, but some people do. Why do they, and why don't you? Are you right or are they? You can't both be right. Either god is ok with eating shrimp, or he's not. And once you realize the argument can NEVER be settled as to who has answered that correctly, you'll begin to understand the root of the problem we face. And why you have to make up stuff I've said when I ask these questions.

"I...have formed my own conception of God."

So what is that conception? Do you believe Jesus existed?

I have desperately tried to stick to the topic of the OP.

I obviously see faith differently. I think there are benefits from spiritual practices and disciplines in of themselves, even if different than what another religion or person practices. I am of the one God, many paths school. Experience of God is ineffable to me and I understand that doesn't work for many people. I'm cool with that; I doubt a loving God would create a hell so it's more about how I tread this earth, not how others do. That's their business.

I believe a faith like that can work, even in the midst of all the wonderful scientific discoveries we are making. If it doesn't work for others, that's fine too. More and more Americans classify themselves as spiritual, not religious. So no, I don't believe an Iron Age religion will survive forever, but I wouldn't rule out spirituality or faith altogether.

You refuse to answer the questions I asked. Congrats on your faith, but I'm sorry you don't understand the problems you invite.

but rather the technology allowing a greater exchange of ideas and communication.

As human thinking has elevated, we have seen a corresponding decline in the power and influence of religion. The enlightenment brought about secular governments and put an end to the "divine right of kings" for instance.

Since the rise of the Internet though, Christianity in particular has seen its greatest decline in not just overall membership (self-identification) but also in fervency of those who remain believers.

seek and find information and to exchange ideas is the big difference. It is having an impact, clearly.

Access to information is unprecedented. Ability to distinguish good information from bad information has remained more or less the same.