How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[Kron3007]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

If you're looking for examples of money that was once spent on religion and is now put to better use, I'd suggest looking at the social safety net. Even in a shithole country like the US, the extant social safety net, such as it is, is more effective and efficient than the collection plate.

That's not  a fair comparison. Since the collection plate is voluntary, but the social safety net is paid for by compulsory taxes, the amount of money involved (and the source) are totally unrelated. If you wanted to do that fairly, you'd do something like comparing, on a per-capita basis, how much religious people contribute to social causes (including money used for those purposes through religious agencies) to the amount of taxes, again on a per-capita basis, that go to the same causes. You'd also have to factor in efficiency. Good religious charities have very low overhead, whereas some government agencies have very high overhead.

Re the social safety net, churches, along with extended family, WERE the social safety net long before secular governments got involved.  And the architects of the social safety net were in large part believers who saw creating a secular social safety net as a way of mobilizing government's resources to create a more godly society.  The social safety net as we know it was in most respects in place before the recent wholesale decline in religious observance.  Yes, I know that many religious voters vote for candidates who have undermined the safety net in recent years.  It's shameful how many professing Christians are failing to follow Jesus' commandments to meet the needs of those around them.  That and other voter phenomena we've been seeing in recent years is a measure of how many believers are not paying enough attention to what the Bible says, rather than too much.

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion.  You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

[marshwiggle]

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Really? Examples? Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Revolutionary France? Venezuela? The history of communism is basically shared misery. The countries (such as Denmark) which have the best social safety nets are the ones allowing religious plurality; i.e. there is no state-prescribed metaphysics, including atheism.

So even if the safety net cannot be ascribed to religion, official atheism has a terrible record of compassion and justice.

[Parasaurolophus]

That's not  a fair comparison. Since the collection plate is voluntary, but the social safety net is paid for by compulsory taxes, the amount of money involved (and the source) are totally unrelated. If you wanted to do that fairly, you'd do something like comparing, on a per-capita basis, how much religious people contribute to social causes (including money used for those purposes through religious agencies) to the amount of taxes, again on a per-capita basis, that go to the same causes. You'd also have to factor in efficiency. Good religious charities have very low overhead, whereas some government agencies have very high overhead.

That's exactly right: collections are voluntary, and that's a major problem. We know that the poor give more generously to charity, as a share of their income, and that's a bad thing. It's the rich who should be giving more. A progressive system of taxation fairly distributes the harms of giving across society. The result is not only a larger collection, but a fairer one.

Perhaps more importantly, however, charitable contributions are distributed according to individual whim. This means that the funds are distributed unfairly, according to a non-neutral party's priorities. Look at billionaires like Bezos. They give away loads of money--to pet causes. They insist on controlling the distribution of their unfairly-earned funds, to ensure that it goes to causes they think are priorities and people they deem to be deserving. We'd be massively better off if instead of doing that, they just paid the equivalent sum in taxes (to say nothing of a larger sum, which fairness would demand). What's needed, instead, is a fair distribution according to society's needs.

Plus, governments have much more clout than individuals and private organizations, and need their work done on a large scale. This means they have the ability to secure better outcomes for all kinds of public projects, including sanitation and healthcare.

None of this is to say that charitable giving is a bad thing, as such. The point, rather, is that it's no replacement for a social safety net.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Really? Examples? Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Revolutionary France? Venezuela? The history of communism is basically shared misery. The countries (such as Denmark) which have the best social safety nets are the ones allowing religious plurality; i.e. there is no state-prescribed metaphysics, including atheism.

So even if the safety net cannot be ascribed to religion, official atheism has a terrible record of compassion and justice.

You typically missed the point, Marshy.

[marshwiggle]

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Really? Examples? Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Revolutionary France? Venezuela? The history of communism is basically shared misery. The countries (such as Denmark) which have the best social safety nets are the ones allowing religious plurality; i.e. there is no state-prescribed metaphysics, including atheism.

So even if the safety net cannot be ascribed to religion, official atheism has a terrible record of compassion and justice.

You typically missed the point, Marshy.

How so? The argument was that communism provided the strongest safety net; I can't think of a single example of a communist country safety net that is better than what is provided by other countries which are not communist, (such as Denmark). So what did I miss?

[Wahoo Redux]

The medieval monasteries saved Western civilization, and Pope Urban II set us on the road to 9/11.

We cannot just whisk away either the good the church has done or the damage.  We can't just insist that Catholic priests who abuse children are "ungodly" or some such: they are also purveyors church agency in the world.  And we cannot ignore Catholic Charities either.

It's a pretty simple deduction from there.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Really? Examples? Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Revolutionary France? Venezuela? The history of communism is basically shared misery. The countries (such as Denmark) which have the best social safety nets are the ones allowing religious plurality; i.e. there is no state-prescribed metaphysics, including atheism.

So even if the safety net cannot be ascribed to religion, official atheism has a terrible record of compassion and justice.

You typically missed the point, Marshy.

How so? The argument was that communism provided the strongest safety net; I can't think of a single example of a communist country safety net that is better than what is provided by other countries which are not communist, (such as Denmark). So what did I miss?

Communism doesn't work.  We all know that.  No need to point it out.  Kron's point is simple: the modern social safety net is the creation of modern culture, not the church.  Re-read.

[marshwiggle]

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Really? Examples? Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Revolutionary France? Venezuela? The history of communism is basically shared misery. The countries (such as Denmark) which have the best social safety nets are the ones allowing religious plurality; i.e. there is no state-prescribed metaphysics, including atheism.

So even if the safety net cannot be ascribed to religion, official atheism has a terrible record of compassion and justice.

You typically missed the point, Marshy.

How so? The argument was that communism provided the strongest safety net; I can't think of a single example of a communist country safety net that is better than what is provided by other countries which are not communist, (such as Denmark). So what did I miss?

Communism doesn't work.  We all know that.  No need to point it out.  Kron's point is simple: the modern social safety net is the creation of modern culture, not the church.  Re-read.

I believe you need to re-read:

In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation. In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Kron specifically argued that communism produces the strongest safety nets. That is demonstratably false. The implication that the less religion, the better the safety net, is again, demonstratably false.
All of the other failures of communism are beside the point.

[Wahoo Redux]

You should stay away from "implications," Marshy.  You make terrible inferences based upon what you want to see.  Rightly or wrongly, these communist countries are cradle-to-grave social safety nets.  Social safety nets are indeed strongest in countries with the religious systems weakened by the government, even if said nets are ineffective.  Kron's comment is no more complicated than that.

[apl68]

Upon reflection, I've realized that I made a serious mistake in letting myself get drawn into a debate over whether religion makes the world a better place.  I could continue to marshal evidence and arguments for my own position, but I've observed from numerous threads on all sorts of topics that that sort of thing only serves to prolong arguments, and doesn't really do anybody any good. 

Arguing isn't what I came here to do in the first place.  I've been trying on this thread to offer personal explanations for how somebody can still take the Bible (Can't speak to other religious texts because I don't follow those) literally.  I tried to do some of that yesterday, but what I said there was ignored in favor of picking apart comments I was foolish enough to make regarding religion and society, and I compounded my error by answering that. 

Sometimes religious practices make the world better, sometimes they make it worse.  The thing is, the teachings of Jesus aren't really about making the world better.  They're about how to live in an inherently evil world, with the promise of someday being able to get out of it.  Jesus didn't promise his followers that if they followed his teachings they would create a better world.  On the contrary, he warned them many times that following him would get them into all kinds of trouble.  And when it did, they were to demonstrate their faithfulness to him by how they responded.

Somebody slaps you on the cheek?  Offer to let him slap the other cheek too.

Somebody curses you?  Bless him.  Somebody hurts you and treats you spitefully?  Pray for him.

You see somebody in need?  Offer whatever help you can to that person.  It's the same as seeing Jesus himself in need and helping him.

You have the means to hold a celebration?  Don't invite your friends and relatives who might pay you back for it.  Invite the poor who can't pay you back, and trust that God will pay you back in his own good time.

And much, much more.

I've been trying to live my life this way for a long time, and you know what?  Trying to live like that in a world where most people don't is kind of like hanging a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.  You'd be better off in terms of money and success and achieving standard personal goals if you followed Jesus' teachings only up to a point--only when it didn't cost you very much, and made you look good.  You're not going to make the world around you a better place.  The world's going to remain stubbornly bad.  Because that's the way people in general are.

But here's something I've realized.  If you not only believe in following Jesus' teachings about the right way to live, but also accept what he said about being the Son of God, who will somebody come back and finally put the world to rights, and will make good all the things you've lost in his service, you start to realize that it doesn't matter.  You realize that you don't have to be angry and bitter at those who've abused you in your marriage, or taken advantage of you, of murdered one of your friends, or voted for bad political candidates.  Because God's going to see too it that everybody ultimately receives justice.  In the meantime you can learn to love all those people, because God loves them just like he loved you when you yourself were living an evil life, and still loves you when you mess up.  And once in a while you get to have the joy of seeing one of those people wake up like you did and start following Jesus too.

Anyway that's why I take the Bible literally.  I would encourage not taking my word for it, or anybody else's.  Just sit down and read the Bible for yourself, starting with the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.  If you've read it before, read it again.  Forget what other people have told you about it.  Just read it with an open mind.  If you've got questions, ask some believer about it.  Just make it an honest "What do you think this means" question, okay?  Not something along the lines of "How on earth can you be such a moron as to believe this?"  I already know I'm a fool!  We're all fools.  Some of us just try to be fools who follow Jesus.

[ciao_yall]

Upon reflection, I've realized that I made a serious mistake in letting myself get drawn into a debate over whether religion makes the world a better place.  I could continue to marshal evidence and arguments for my own position, but I've observed from numerous threads on all sorts of topics that that sort of thing only serves to prolong arguments, and doesn't really do anybody any good. 

Arguing isn't what I came here to do in the first place.  I've been trying on this thread to offer personal explanations for how somebody can still take the Bible (Can't speak to other religious texts because I don't follow those) literally.  I tried to do some of that yesterday, but what I said there was ignored in favor of picking apart comments I was foolish enough to make regarding religion and society, and I compounded my error by answering that. 

Sometimes religious practices make the world better, sometimes they make it worse.  The thing is, the teachings of Jesus aren't really about making the world better.  They're about how to live in an inherently evil world, with the promise of someday being able to get out of it.  Jesus didn't promise his followers that if they followed his teachings they would create a better world.  On the contrary, he warned them many times that following him would get them into all kinds of trouble.  And when it did, they were to demonstrate their faithfulness to him by how they responded.

Somebody slaps you on the cheek?  Offer to let him slap the other cheek too.

Somebody curses you?  Bless him.  Somebody hurts you and treats you spitefully?  Pray for him.

You see somebody in need?  Offer whatever help you can to that person.  It's the same as seeing Jesus himself in need and helping him.

You have the means to hold a celebration?  Don't invite your friends and relatives who might pay you back for it.  Invite the poor who can't pay you back, and trust that God will pay you back in his own good time.

And much, much more.

I've been trying to live my life this way for a long time, and you know what?  Trying to live like that in a world where most people don't is kind of like hanging a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.  You'd be better off in terms of money and success and achieving standard personal goals if you followed Jesus' teachings only up to a point--only when it didn't cost you very much, and made you look good.  You're not going to make the world around you a better place.  The world's going to remain stubbornly bad.  Because that's the way people in general are.

But here's something I've realized.  If you not only believe in following Jesus' teachings about the right way to live, but also accept what he said about being the Son of God, who will somebody come back and finally put the world to rights, and will make good all the things you've lost in his service, you start to realize that it doesn't matter.  You realize that you don't have to be angry and bitter at those who've abused you in your marriage, or taken advantage of you, of murdered one of your friends, or voted for bad political candidates.  Because God's going to see too it that everybody ultimately receives justice.  In the meantime you can learn to love all those people, because God loves them just like he loved you when you yourself were living an evil life, and still loves you when you mess up.  And once in a while you get to have the joy of seeing one of those people wake up like you did and start following Jesus too.

Anyway that's why I take the Bible literally.  I would encourage not taking my word for it, or anybody else's.  Just sit down and read the Bible for yourself, starting with the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.  If you've read it before, read it again.  Forget what other people have told you about it.  Just read it with an open mind.  If you've got questions, ask some believer about it.  Just make it an honest "What do you think this means" question, okay?  Not something along the lines of "How on earth can you be such a moron as to believe this?"  I already know I'm a fool!  We're all fools.  Some of us just try to be fools who follow Jesus.

There are good Christians and bad Christians. Just like there are good and bad Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Wiccans...

Good people use religion to make themselves better people.They find moral and spiritual support for doing the right things for their fellow human beings. Maybe good people don't always agree what the right thing is, but they believe they are coming from a good and loving place and trying to make the world better.

Bad people use religion as an excuse to be a$$holes. They justify their prejudices and convince themselves that others are inherently evil, less than human, or simply flawed/broken. Their vision of a better world involves exalting themselves and crushing those who they decide are "less-than."

To borrow loosely from Schitt's Creek, "It's the wine, not the label."

[Wahoo Redux]

Upon reflection, I've realized that I made a serious mistake in letting myself get drawn into a debate over whether religion makes the world a better place.  I could continue to marshal evidence and arguments for my own position, but I've observed from numerous threads on all sorts of topics that that sort of thing only serves to prolong arguments, and doesn't really do anybody any good. 

Arguing isn't what I came here to do in the first place. 

You seem like a very good, genuine person, apl, and I find your commentary interesting and I would not upset you personally, but this is a place where people are discussing this particular issue.  The thread was posed as a debate from the beginning.  If the commentary here is indeed upsetting, maybe don't post here.

I have read the Bible and find it most beautiful as a literary object---in fact, I am working on a manuscript that talks about the KJV versions of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes!-----but you must realize that this writing is not going to have the same effect on everybody that it has on you.

God bless.

[Kron3007]

I think we all recognize that religion served as an early social safety net.  Many non religious people would agree that religion playsed an important role in earlier society for this, and other reasons, but that it is not longer needed and only causes issues now.

To attribute the modern social safety net to religion seems to be a stretch.  In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation.  In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Really? Examples? Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Revolutionary France? Venezuela? The history of communism is basically shared misery. The countries (such as Denmark) which have the best social safety nets are the ones allowing religious plurality; i.e. there is no state-prescribed metaphysics, including atheism.

So even if the safety net cannot be ascribed to religion, official atheism has a terrible record of compassion and justice.

You typically missed the point, Marshy.

How so? The argument was that communism provided the strongest safety net; I can't think of a single example of a communist country safety net that is better than what is provided by other countries which are not communist, (such as Denmark). So what did I miss?

Communism doesn't work.  We all know that.  No need to point it out.  Kron's point is simple: the modern social safety net is the creation of modern culture, not the church.  Re-read.

I believe you need to re-read:

In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation. In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Kron specifically argued that communism produces the strongest safety nets. That is demonstratably false. The implication that the less religion, the better the safety net, is again, demonstratably false.
All of the other failures of communism are beside the point.

You are conflating countries that call themselves communist with what communism actually stands for.  None of the countries you list are actually communist, nor has there ever actually been a truly communist country.  These are all dictatorships with communist ideals (perhaps) that have been corrupted in various ways (perhaps inevitably so).  That being said, if you look at dictatorships with communist ideals such as the USSR, Cuba, etc., you will see that they offer free education, medical care, and other social safety nets, as long as you don't disappear or something.  Also note that I am not saying that it works this way in practice, I am simply stating that the whole basis of communism is equality and a strong social safety net in the absence of religion.     

As for Denmark allowing a religious plurality, this is true but the level of religion there is relatively low.  The point of this is that social safety nets tend to be stronger in countries that are less pious.  This could be correlation rather than causation, or it could be that more religious regions see less need for the government providing this and would prefer to see it done by the church (or whatever). 

   

[marshwiggle]

In fact, I would argue that the social safety net and other services aimed at equality tend to be stronger in less religious countries (ie Denmark) and if anything there is a negative correlation. In the most extreme form, communism has the strongest social net with the least religion. You can argue about the  outcomes of communism, but the theoretical intent is equality and prosperity for all without a need for god to tell us to do so.

Kron specifically argued that communism produces the strongest safety nets. That is demonstratably false. The implication that the less religion, the better the safety net, is again, demonstratably false.
All of the other failures of communism are beside the point.

You are conflating countries that call themselves communist with what communism actually stands for.  None of the countries you list are actually communist, nor has there ever actually been a truly communist country.  These are all dictatorships with communist ideals (perhaps) that have been corrupted in various ways (perhaps inevitably so). 

I've heard that argument since the '80's. (Albania was supposed to be closest to Marxist paradise then.....)

The question is, if communism is such a wonderful system, how has it failed to be reasonably instantiated even once? In a century, across hundreds of countries?????? The most obvious interpretation is that is is so inherently unstable or self-contradictory that it is impossible.

That being said, if you look at dictatorships with communist ideals such as the USSR, Cuba, etc., you will see that they offer free education, medical care, and other social safety nets, as long as you don't disappear or something. 

Every rose has its thorns.....

Also note that I am not saying that it works this way in practice, I am simply stating that the whole basis of communism is equality and a strong social safety net in the absence of religion.     

The fact that no country actually can be investigated for this because there are no "truly" communist countries makes it purely speculative, with NO empirical evidence.

As for Denmark allowing a religious plurality, this is true but the level of religion there is relatively low.  The point of this is that social safety nets tend to be stronger in countries that are less pious.  This could be correlation rather than causation, or it could be that more religious regions see less need for the government providing this and would prefer to see it done by the church (or whatever). 

The point is that the countries enived for their social safety nets are NOT officially atheist. Denying religion in any of the countries where it has been done, has NOT led to the best societies; it has led to grim, opressive ones.

Based on empirical evidence, attempts to stamp out religion have made societies worse, not better.

[apl68]

Upon reflection, I've realized that I made a serious mistake in letting myself get drawn into a debate over whether religion makes the world a better place.  I could continue to marshal evidence and arguments for my own position, but I've observed from numerous threads on all sorts of topics that that sort of thing only serves to prolong arguments, and doesn't really do anybody any good. 

Arguing isn't what I came here to do in the first place. 

You seem like a very good, genuine person, apl, and I find your commentary interesting and I would not upset you personally, but this is a place where people are discussing this particular issue.  The thread was posed as a debate from the beginning.  If the commentary here is indeed upsetting, maybe don't post here.

I have read the Bible and find it most beautiful as a literary object---in fact, I am working on a manuscript that talks about the KJV versions of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes!-----but you must realize that this writing is not going to have the same effect on everybody that it has on you.

God bless.

No, everybody isn't going to get the same thing out of the Bible.  I still encourage people to read it.  And people who read it once have been known to get more out of it upon reading it again.