Are humans hard-wired for faith?

Asiaprod

Interesting piece on today's CNN Online, enjoy.


Are humans hard-wired for faith?

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I just know God is with me. I can feel Him always," a young Haitian woman once told me.

"I've meditated and gone to another place I can't describe. Hours felt like mere minutes. It was an indescribable feeling of peace," recalled a CNN colleague.

"I've spoken in languages I've never learned. It was God speaking through me," confided a relative.

The accounts of intense religious and spiritual experiences are topics of fascination for people around the world. It's a mere glimpse into someone's faith and belief system. It's a hint at a person's intense connection with God, an omniscient being or higher plane. Most people would agree the experience of faith is immeasurable.

Dr. Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist and author of "Why We Believe What We Believe," wants to change all that. He's working on ways to track how the human brain processes religion and spirituality. It's all part of new field called neurotheology.

After spending his early medical career studying how the brain works in neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, depression and anxiety, Newberg took that brain-scanning technology and turned it toward the spiritual: Franciscan nuns, Tibetan Buddhists, and Pentecostal Christians speaking in tongues. His team members at the University of Pennsylvania were surprised by what they found.

"When we think of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, we see a tremendous similarity across practices and across traditions."

The frontal lobe, the area right behind our foreheads, helps us focus our attention in prayer and meditation.

The parietal lobe, located near the backs of our skulls, is the seat of our sensory information. Newberg says it's involved in that feeling of becoming part of something greater than oneself.

The limbic system, nestled deep in the center, regulates our emotions and is responsible for feelings of awe and joy.

Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God. He says there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power.

Interestingly enough, devout believers and atheists alike point to the brain scans as proof of their own ideas.

Some nuns and other believers champion the brain scans as proof of an innate, physical conduit between human beings and God. According to them, it would only make sense that God would give humans a way to communicate with the Almighty through their brain functions.

Some atheists saw these brain scans as proof that the emotions attached to religion and God are nothing more than manifestations of brain circuitry.

Scott Atran doesn't consider himself an atheist, but he says the brain scans offer little in terms of understanding why humans believe in God. He is an anthropologist and author of "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion."

Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation.

"Just like we're not hardwired for boats, but humans in all cultures make boats in pretty much the same way, Atran explains. "Now, that's a result both of the way the brain works and of the needs of the world, and of trying to traverse a liquid medium and so I think religion is very much like that."

Atran points to the palms of his hands as another example of evolutionary coincidence. He says the creases formed there are a mere byproduct of human beings working with our hands -- stretching back to the ages of striking the first fires, hunting the first prey to building early shelter. Although, the patterns in our palms were coincidentally formed by eons of evolution and survival, he points out that cultures around the world try to find meaning in them through different forms of palm reading.

Anthropologists like Atran say, "Religion is a byproduct of many different evolutionary functions that organized our brains for day-to-day activity."

To be sure, religion has the unparalleled power to bring people into groups. Religion has helped humans survive, adapt and evolve in groups over the ages. It's also helped us learn to cope with death, identify danger and finding mating partners.

Today, scientific images can track our thoughts on God, but it would take a long leap of faith to identify why we think of God in the first place.

cathald

I remember reading a good book on this 'The God Part of the Brain', was very interesting!

www.godpart.com

Dades

CNN Online wrote:

Today, scientific images can track our thoughts on God, but it would take a long leap of faith to identify why we think of God in the first place.

What does that mean?
I would have thought the answer to that is completely obvious.

Sangre

Of course we're hard wired for it. How else do you explain the masses over the ages believing in countless Gods without any evidence.

pinksoir

Sangre wrote:

Of course we're hard wired for it. How else do you explain the masses over the ages believing in countless Gods without any evidence.

i'm not really sure that that is enough evidence to show that we are hard wired for religious belief. it is more a testimony to the innate nature of humans to try and understand the world. originally there was mythology - many gods, which developed, as our scientific knowledge of the world did, into a monotheism. and now as our understanding of the world is further developed by science, the need to explain our existence through a god is slowly diminishing into what dawkins calls a 'god of the gaps', in which god is seen as the answer to questions that can't, thusfar, be explained by science (but will be in the future!).

Splendour

Asiaprod wrote:

Interesting piece on today's CNN Online, enjoy.


Are humans hard-wired for faith?.

Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation.

Absolutely! This and conscience are what separates us from the animal kingdom.


Statements like this fasinate me. Like where, if we evolved, would our need for faith come from?? And why?? A byproduct?? Will in years to come will cats & dogs be seeking a spiritual meaning in their lives..? Can't see my cat feeling too concerned about any of this somehow or other...

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Like where, if we evolved, would our need for faith come from??

From a number of areas. For example humans seem to instinctively view objects as agents. We give objects and events the quality of humans, and then view the world around this. We beat kick our car when it brakes down and curse it for doing it "on purpose." No of course we rationally understand that a car doesn't have agency, but the instinct is still there so we invent an agent behind this. "Luck", or "faith", or "karma" has made our car break down for some purpose or reason.

It is no real con coincidence that pretty much every god ever invent acts very similar to how a human would act. A lot of religions even seem aware of this and attempt to explain it by saying that their god in fact invented us and we act as a god would act.

Gods are our instinct for agency coupled with our rationality that inanimate objects don't have agency. We abstract the agency out behind the object into the supernatural. The weather, or the late bus, or the knife that slips on your foot, all still have agency but that agency is no some mysterious intelligence behind the sense.

This is just one are of how humans view the world that has lead to religion.

Splendour wrote:

Can't see my cat feeling too concerned about any of this somehow or other...

How would you know either way? A cat may very well view humans as things that are controlled by other, possibly invisible, cats.

Tar.Aldarion

Not hard-wired on religion/god exactly. I would say more ignorance/arrogance/fear.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

It is no real con coincidence that pretty much every god ever invent acts very similar to how a human would act. A lot of religions even seem aware of this and attempt to explain it by saying that their god in fact invented us and we act as a god would act.

Could you expand on this statement Wicknight? I cannot comment on other beliefs, but as far as Christianity goes, I don't think we need to excuse or apologise for this fact. Jesus teachings as I'm sure you'll agree(whether you believe or not) are a wonderful blueprint for how to live.

As for the fact that we act like our God would act-this is just not possible. We can certainly listen to his teachings and try to live as best we can by them, but don't most people (be they Christian or not)life a half decent moral life anyway? Some of my friends who aren't Christian are far 'nicer' people than I am.

This is where Christianity differs from any other 'religion' - we know we can never aspire to be God like through 'acting out' God given laws.

stevejazzx

Splendour wrote:

Could you expand on this statement Wicknight? I cannot comment on other beliefs, but as far as Christianity goes, I don't think we need to excuse or apologise for this fact. Jesus teachings as I'm sure you'll agree(whether you believe or not) are a wonderful blueprint for how to live.

Yes they are if takien selectively and updated. Obviouisly his golden rule outlines a very simple basis for general human morality, treat others as you would like them to treat yourself. Fantastic, so easily digestible that anyone can understand it. However modern morality is much trickier, particularly when dealing with how we (humans) determine our superiority - as scofflaw and schuart are demonstrating in a seperate thread currently.

Splendour wrote:

As for the fact that we act like our God would act-this is just not possible. We can certainly listen to his teachings and try to live as best we can by them, but don't most people (be they Christian or not)life a half decent moral life anyway? Some of my friends who aren't Christian are far 'nicer' people than I am.

We don't act like our god. The Gods we invent act like us. For example the God of the old testament seeks revenge. This is a human condition. Seeking revenge, murdering people and invoking fear are human qualities and ideas superimposed onto a supernatural being through fear of the the world and desire for stalbilty amoung people. Remeber that in biblical times a strom was not the result was low and high pressure centers converging in the shy but a direct act from god.
It's obvious becasue modern day teachings about God underline that he is all loving, all forgiving entity becasue a war mongering spiritula entity no longer makes any sense. Of course with so many authors contributing to the bible, so many books combining to make it up that the message of morality is unclear. In ancient days for example, the treatment of women was horrendous and this is reflected in the biblical God who proclaims that they
'must submit themselves onto their husbands'. Of course with modernisation and enlightenment we as a society no longer share these sentiments about women. Only antiquated or fundamentalist reliogus practices still do, the rest of the world has moved on. This is what I meant when I siad earlier that Jesus teachings have been updated by a forever shifting, morally ambigous catholic church. Otherwise we would we subjecting the whole of humanity to justice systems used 2 thousand years ago, but we don't. Everything has to change and our outlook on morality is forever redefining itself as we understand our place in the universe better, Human beings have the gift of conscious logical progressive thought and the ability to express it and hone it. This is what ultimately determines our morality on a ongoing basis. The lessons from the the bible etc. are just passing considerations to a enlightened thinker, there are no by no means infallible, then again nothing is and that is kind of the point.

Splendour wrote:

This is where Christianity differs from any other 'religion' - we know we can never aspire to be God like through 'acting out' God given laws.

In which religon do the worshippers aspire to be god like? I would of thought that to be considered blasphemous - in most major religons anyways.

superman12345

stevejazzx wrote:

Obviouisly his golden rule outlines a very simple basis for general human morality, treat others as you would like them to treat yourself. Fantastic, so easily digestible that anyone can understand it.

Actually, the Golden Rule has appeared in almost all religions (see below):

Note that in early Judaism, the rule only applied between Jews (despite the fact that the language used was universal in nature)
Secondly, arguably, Jesus's message was meant for Jews only - and it was St. Paul who universalised it (and corrupted it).
Thirdly, the Golden rule may not apply in Islam (From the Quran, it applied to other Muslims only) - google "Ali Sina" to see the debates on this.


(source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)
Bahá'í Faith: “Choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6.
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Ze-Gong asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'xu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.
Hinduism: "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself." Mencius Vii.A.4
"This is the sum of the Dharma [duty]: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society.
Jainism: "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15
Native American Spirituality:
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
Sikhism: "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: ( Nigeria ): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

Several philosophers have also expressed the same concept in different words: Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." ( Greece ; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." ( Greece ; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 ( Rome ; 1st century CE)

Zillah

Splendour wrote:

Jesus teachings as I'm sure you'll agree(whether you believe or not) are a wonderful blueprint for how to live.

Uh yeah, Jesus was a swell guy:

Jesus- "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Superman12345 wrote:

Actually, the Golden Rule has appeared in almost all religions

Wasn't it the jews of the old testament that advocated "an eye for an eye", which is more like "Do unto others as they do unto you" rather than the golden rule.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Wasn't it the jews of the old testament that advocated "an eye for an eye", which is more like "Do unto others as they do unto you" rather than the golden rule.

You could even say instead that virtually all human groups have operated on the principle of "do unto others as you would be done by" inside their group, and "an eye for eye" outside it.

Definition of "group" there up to the individual...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour

Zillah wrote:

Uh yeah, Jesus was a swell guy:

Jesus- "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

This quote from Matthw 10 Jesus was not actually referring to peace in the world, but rather him explaining to his disiples about divisions (the sword), that the gospel would bring. Hence man against father, daughter against mother etc...I unfortunately have evidence of this in my own family. I think he was warning us that 'taking up the cross' would not be easy, even amongst family and friends...

Good point though Zillah

Splendour

stevejazzx wrote:

Yes they are if takien selectively and updated. Obviouisly his golden rule outlines a very simple basis for general human morality, treat others as you would like them to treat yourself. Fantastic, so easily digestible that anyone can understand it. However modern morality is much trickier, particularly when dealing with how we (humans) determine our superiority - as scofflaw and schuart are demonstrating in a seperate thread currently.



We don't act like our god. The Gods we invent act like us. For example the God of the old testament seeks revenge. This is a human condition. Seeking revenge, murdering people and invoking fear are human qualities and ideas superimposed onto a supernatural being through fear of the the world and desire for stalbilty amoung people. Remeber that in biblical times a strom was not the result was low and high pressure centers converging in the shy but a direct act from god.
It's obvious becasue modern day teachings about God underline that he is all loving, all forgiving entity becasue a war mongering spiritula entity no longer makes any sense. Of course with so many authors contributing to the bible, so many books combining to make it up that the message of morality is unclear. In ancient days for example, the treatment of women was horrendous and this is reflected in the biblical God who proclaims that they
'must submit themselves onto their husbands'. Of course with modernisation and enlightenment we as a society no longer share these sentiments about women. Only antiquated or fundamentalist reliogus practices still do, the rest of the world has moved on. This is what I meant when I siad earlier that Jesus teachings have been updated by a forever shifting, morally ambigous catholic church. Otherwise we would we subjecting the whole of humanity to justice systems used 2 thousand years ago, but we don't. Everything has to change and our outlook on morality is forever redefining itself as we understand our place in the universe better, Human beings have the gift of conscious logical progressive thought and the ability to express it and hone it. This is what ultimately determines our morality on a ongoing basis. The lessons from the the bible etc. are just passing considerations to a enlightened thinker, there are no by no means infallible, then again nothing is and that is kind of the point.

Do you honestly think that if anyone were to 'invent' a god they would choose the Christian God of the bible? Surely they'd come up with something more believable than that. I know if I wanted people to follow something false (for whatever reason), I'd sure as hell make it alot sexier than it is in reality. The appealing thing about Christianity is not the 'love thy neighbour as thyself' bit, but the message of the cross which concentrates on the afterlife rather than this present life...

Oh and the bit about women 'submitting to their husbands' is nothing compared to what the guys have to do; they're told to 'lay down their lives for their wives'... Now ain't you glad you're an athiest... :O)

Zillah

Splendour wrote:

The appealing thing about Christianity is not the 'love thy neighbour as thyself' bit, but the message of the cross which concentrates on the afterlife rather than this present life...

I'd have thought the "appealing" thing about Christianity was that the crusaders and inquisitors would let you live if you did everything they said...

This quote from Matthw 10 Jesus was not actually referring to peace in the world, but rather him explaining to his disiples about divisions (the sword), that the gospel would bring.

Maybe. People disagree about what he meant. Some read it as a literal sword, advocating violence.

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote:

Oh and the bit about women 'submitting to their husbands' is nothing compared to what the guys have to do; they're told to 'lay down their lives for their wives'... Now ain't you glad you're an athiest... :O)

Bah. If you're married, you'll know that we do 'lay down our lives' (the lives we had, anyway) without any sign whatsoever of 'submission'...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour

Scofflaw wrote:

Bah. If you're married, you'll know that we do 'lay down our lives' (the lives we had, anyway) without any sign whatsoever of 'submission'...

Exactly, guys get the bad end of the deal-never ceases to amaze me why people think Christianity is so down on women! In fact,if most of us (male or female), had someone who 'lay down their lives' for them in every aspect, I don't think anyone would have a problem submitting to that!! Just for the record, husbands and wives are told to submit to each other. Think how wonderful marraiges would be if lived out biblically. (Not saying that all Christians do this either btw...)

I can relate to people thinking Christianity puts women down as second class citizens.Until I read the whole of what St. Paul taught about husbands and wives, I had him down as being a misogynist. In fact he was telling the men of the day, (who didn't treat women well), to pull their socks up & put their wives first...



This post totally off track though-sorry...

Sangre

So its ok that men get the short end of the stick?

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Could you expand on this statement Wicknight? I cannot comment on other beliefs, but as far as Christianity goes, I don't think we need to excuse or apologise for this fact.

I'm not suggesting you have to. My point was that every god worshiped by humans appears to act as a human would act because every god worshiped by humans was invented by humans. Gods are modeled on humans because what else would humans model this concept on?

It is similar to the way that a lot of humans form the idea of the perfect person based on their parents.

Your God is described as acting like a human because he was invented by humans.

Splendour wrote:

Jesus teachings as I'm sure you'll agree(whether you believe or not) are a wonderful blueprint for how to live.

No, some of Jesus' teaching are a good blueprint for how to live. Some of them aren't.

But the main problem with Jesus' teaching is that there is no foundation beyond "God tells you to" They are instructions for a way how to live, not a reason why this way is a good way.

One of the characteristics of modern morality is that it is a patch work of different rational arguments. You can reduce moral arguments down to a more basic level and then apply that to others. This in general allows moral ideas to spread to areas that were not originally envisioned.

Because something like the Bible is instruction rather than reason it unfortunately doesn't work like this. There is no purpose behind a Biblical instruction such as "don't murder" because another bit of the Bible will detail a lot of murder.

The only moral that one can deduce is "Don't do something if God tells you not to, do do something if God tells you to"

There is no weight behind these, figuring out why you should or should not do something is not possible. You are just supposed to either do it or not do it. You cannot argue with God.

Splendour wrote:

As for the fact that we act like our God would act-this is just not possible.

No, our gods act like we act. They have the same emotions, they think the same way, they act the same way. They do this because we invented them and modeled them on humans.

Religions have attempted to explain this by saying that in fact we were created in the image of our gods. Which is why we appear to act like gods act.

Splendour wrote:

but don't most people (be they Christian or not)life a half decent moral life anyway?

They do. Morality doesn't come from religion, religion reflects the morality found in humanity.

The reason why our gods appear to come up with a morality that seems to appear natural to us is because we actually came up with the morality ourselves and then invented the gods to explain where this came from because we didn't understand anything to do with biology or evolution.

Splendour wrote:

This is where Christianity differs from any other 'religion' - we know we can never aspire to be God like through 'acting out' God given laws.

Well you are God like, because your religion describes your god as pretty much a very powerful version of a human. Gods acts as a human, and humans act like gods, because gods are modeled on humans. You share the exact same range of emotions as your god is described in the Bible as sharing.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Do you honestly think that if anyone were to 'invent' a god they would choose the Christian God of the bible?

Well the Arabamic god followed by Jewish Christian and Muslim religions has had a huge following throughout history, so clearly they hit a nerve with a lot of people.

While I don't really understand it myself (I find it impossible to imagine how anyone accepts it as rational after thinking about it for more than 5 minutes) I would imagine it has a lot to do with the idea of being saved, either from death or from just life in general. The idea of something out there saving you from what ever crappy thing is happening in your life, which is your fault for not being saved in the first place, can be very compelling. Again I would relate this to the way that a dying soldier cries out for his mother on the battle field. We all want something that we view as powerful to come in and fix what ever we are scared or worried about.

Christianity also forms issues around things that humans in general have issues about, sex being the prime example. Most people have hang ups over sex, its part of our nature. Christianity exploits these hang ups in an appealing way (for example - those people who are having a lot more sex than me are going to hell)

All religions work by manipulating the things that humans are naturally concerned or hung up over. Christianity just seems to be one religion that has hit all the right notes.

Splendour

Sangre wrote:

So its ok that men get the short end of the stick?

Is this a rhetorical question?

In case not,I'll give you my opinion anyway...

No, I don't think that men get the 'short end of the stick' and nor should they. God created men and women equally and thus they should treat each other equally. Hence they are told to submit to each other in love and understanding. Look at any marraige situation you know of. If a husband is 'henpecked', this causes division. If a wife is abused, this too causes division.

As regards to men laying down their lives for their wives-yes, this is a biblical dictum. Though just as God would not want a wife to 'submit' to an ogre of a husband (is he laying down his life for her..?), nor would he expect a husband to lay down his life again and again for an overburdening opressive wife (how often does she submit and admit she's wrong..?) God does not give these guidlines to wreck our happiness, but rather to enhance it.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

No, some of Jesus' teaching are a good blueprint for how to live. Some of them aren't.

Am curious (again!) about this statement. Can you point out to me which parts of Jesus' teachings are not good?

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

Christianity also forms issues around things that humans in general have issues about, sex being the prime example. Most people have hang ups over sex, its part of our nature. Christianity exploits these hang ups in an appealing way (for example - those people who are having a lot more sex than me are going to hell)

Seems to me that non Christians have more hangs ups about sex than Christians do!! Sex isn't an invention of the 'swinging 60's';God created and gave us this beautiful gift for procreation and pleasure between husband and wife; the ultimate coming together as one.

Zillah

Splendour wrote:

God created and gave us this beautiful gift for procreation and pleasure between husband and wife

Prove it.

The following things are not proof: The Bible, the fallacy of design, your personal feelings.

Also, I think you'll find that people can gain this pleasure from virtually anyone or anything that they can rub their genitals against, not just husbands and wives

Splendour

Zillah wrote:

Prove it.

The following things are not proof: The Bible, the fallacy of design, your personal feelings.

Also, I think you'll find that people can gain this pleasure from virtually anyone or anything that they can rub their genitals against, not just husbands and wives

I cannot prove it Zillah, and will never claim to prove it. I wish with all my heart there was a way to 'prove' this gospel,but that is not up to me, but to God and the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you've heard of 'doubting Thomas' (John 20,24-29)who would not believe the disciples when they told him Jesus had risen. It was not until he's seen Jesus for himself did he believe. Jesus said to him, 'blessed are those who have not seen and have believed'.

This is love at it's purest form, and how can one explain love to someone who's never been in love..?

BTW, your quote on people gaining pleasure rubbing their genitals against anything to gain pleasure is quite apt here. Anyone can get satisfaction from most religions, but it's not until you find the 'one' that you realise what true love is...

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote:

Seems to me that non Christians have more hangs ups about sex than Christians do!!

To look at it another way - for whatever reason, all of us have a feeling that some aspects of sex are OK, and other aspects are not (it's a complex drive). Religions codify these by saying "this is OK and this is not", which greatly reduces anxiety for most people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote:

I cannot prove it Zillah, and will never claim to prove it. I wish with all my heart there was a way to 'prove' this gospel,but that is not up to me, but to God and the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you've heard of 'doubting Thomas' (John 20,24-29)who would not believe the disciples when they told him Jesus had risen. It was not until he's seen Jesus for himself did he believe. Jesus said to him, 'blessed are those who have not seen and have believed'.

This is love at it's purest form, and how can one explain love to someone who's never been in love..?

BTW, your quote on people gaining pleasure rubbing their genitals against anything to gain pleasure is quite apt here. Anyone can get satisfaction from most religions, but it's not until you find the 'one' that you realise what true love is...

Which is also quite apt, given that (a) the 'one' is different for everyone, (b) love is blind, (c) there's usually more than 'one', and (d) most people just recapitulate their parents' relationship anyway...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour

Scofflaw wrote:

Which is also quite apt, given that (a) the 'one' is different for everyone, (b) love is blind, (c) there's usually more than 'one', and (d) most people just recapitulate their parents' relationship anyway...

cordially,
Scofflaw

More than slightly twisting an allegory here a bit Scofflaw..?

(a) in the case if God the 'one' is the same for all.
(b) love is blind in a literal sense, but not in a spiritual sense.
(c) of course there's more than one-but which is the perfect one?
(d) a lot of people certainly recapitulate their parents relationships, but this
merely because they don't know any better and/or feel safer in their
comfort zone...

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote:

More than slightly twisting an allegory here a bit Scofflaw..?

(a) in the case if God the 'one' is the same for all.
(b) love is blind in a literal sense, but not in a spiritual sense.
(c) of course there's more than one-but which is the perfect one?
(d) a lot of people certainly recapitulate their parents relationships, but this
merely because they don't know any better and/or feel safer in their
comfort zone...

Mostly for fun, I have to admit...because...

Splendour wrote:

Zillah wrote:

Also, I think you'll find that people can gain this pleasure from virtually anyone or anything that they can rub their genitals against, not just husbands and wives

Anyone can get satisfaction from most religions, but it's not until you find the 'one' that you realise what true love is...

...really that was quite a leap itself. Are there religions which can reasonably be characterised as "rubbing your genitals against things"? If so, which ones, and why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Splendour wrote:

I cannot prove it Zillah, and will never claim to prove it.

Oh.

Well given your admission that there is no proof, then surely it is both insulting (to us) and irrational (of yourself) to make assertions to the contrary? I would reccomend a sceptical silence on the issue until further evidence is presented.

It was not until he's seen Jesus for himself did he believe. Jesus said to him, 'blessed are those who have not seen and have believed'.

Well of course Jesus said that, he was probably a charlatan.

"Well this guy pulling a rabbit out of a hat told me that its a good thing to not look inside hats." :rolleyes:

Anyone can get satisfaction from most religions, but it's not until you find the 'one' that you realise what true love is...

I've yet to discover any religion that was not not deeply flawed and irrational. Were I to partake I would feel dirty and sheepish, not 'satisfied'.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what about scientology?

from what I've seen of it so far it looks pretty kick ass

Zillah

Mordeth wrote:

what about scientology?

from what I've seen of it so far it looks pretty kick ass

They're evil beyond belief. While the Vatican has used manipulation and intimidation to suck funds out of people for centuries, they usually did it with a sort of arrogant ignorance. Scientologists are doing it in a terrifyingly cold and calculated sense. These people have solicited tens of millions from poor gullible fools and have been implicated in dozens of instances of illegal intimidation and other really serious stuff. They also force their members to sever contact with their friends and family.

They're also in the habit of bombarding their critics with hoards of lawyers and lawsuits at the drop of a hat.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i dunno about that, I saw one of their orientation videos online and they all seemed like very nice people. I've only read Battlefield Earth by L Ron, but it was such a good book, powerfully written and so much of the human condition was revealed in it.. I may have to give his Dianetics a read soon. The video certainly made it out to be very worthwhile reading.

Zillah

Mordeth wrote:

i dunno about that, I saw one of their orientation videos online and they all seemed like very nice people. I've only read Battlefield Earth by L Ron, but it was such a good book, powerfully written and so much of the human condition was revealed in it.. I may have to give his Dianetics a read soon. The video certainly made it out to be very worthwhile reading.

Silence! I'll not play your games, they're evil.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

i dunno about that, I saw one of their orientation videos online and they all seemed like very nice people. I've only read Battlefield Earth by L Ron, but it was such a good book, powerfully written and so much of the human condition was revealed in it.. I may have to give his Dianetics a read soon. The video certainly made it out to be very worthwhile reading.

I'm going to hope you're taking the piss. If that doesn't work, I'm going to put a blanket over my head and sing.

Did you read the Wikipedia entry, as a matter of interest? Not that Wikipedia is automatically going to be right, but it's always worth reading around, and there's quite a bit of information there.

Be advised, first and foremost, that the Oxford Personality Assessment is not considered in any way worthwhile.

concerned,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well, I just think you should watch the Scientology Orientation Video and you will be hit by a torrent of ideas and feelings.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

well, I just think you should watch the Scientology Orientation Video and you will be hit by a torrent of ideas and feelings.

Mmm. Those are just engrams getting your thetan excited. You won't get Clear that way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

do you have to know where your thetan is to apply does anyone know? I left mine on a bus in heathrow airport as I was rushing to catch a plane last year.. I called the airport but no one handed it in, or maybe some employee decided he needed two thetans.

I hope he's alright..

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

do you have to know where your thetan is to apply does anyone know? I left mine on a bus in heathrow airport as I was rushing to catch a plane last year.. I called the airport but no one handed it in, or maybe some employee decided he needed two thetans.

I hope he's alright..

You'd think he'd have learned his lesson about airliners by now, wouldn't you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well he complained about how sweaty I was, it was a very warm day and I was wearing two jumpers I didn't have room in my suitcase for so I just took him out for a bit of air and,...

it's been about 9 months now

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

well he complained about how sweaty I was, it was a very warm day and I was wearing two jumpers I didn't have room in my suitcase for so I just took him out for a bit of air and,...

it's been about 9 months now

Hmm. Suspicious timing, what? Had you had him long?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i've only known about him for 5 years or so, but he said he'd always been around. he came to me in a dream (I was asleep) and told me who he was. We talked about ethics, music (huge avril lavigne fan) and politics (he's pro-bush oddly enough)
But I woke up anyway and I just *knew* that what I had experienced wasn't a normal dream, ya know? it actually had happened, and well, I just miss him.
it worries me, thinking about what he could be doing. he was always a very impressionable thetan

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

i've only known about him for 5 years or so, but he said he'd always been around. he came to me in a dream (I was asleep) and told me who he was. We talked about ethics, music (huge avril lavigne fan) and politics (he's pro-bush oddly enough)
But I woke up anyway and I just *knew* that what I had experienced wasn't a normal dream, ya know? it actually had happened, and well, I just miss him.
it worries me, thinking about what he could be doing. he was always a very impressionable thetan

Have you tried the Charing Cross Road? Kind of towards Leicester Square?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

look, I'll be honest with you. I don't really have a thetan. I was making the whole thing up to get a cheap laugh but... it just seems kind of hollow now.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

look, I'll be honest with you. I don't really have a thetan. I was making the whole thing up to get a cheap laugh but... it just seems kind of hollow now.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Have you considered the solace available through religion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I have, and I rejected it in favour of the solace available through touching myself.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

I have, and I rejected it in favour of the solace available through touching myself.

Oh well, that's alright then. Happy touching.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Seems to me that non Christians have more hangs ups about sex than Christians do!!

Well no offense, but that is probably because being a Christian you believe that Christianity removes any confusing issues about sex, desire and lust (which are sins after all) and presents a correct structured moral way to view sexual relationships. Of course it only needs to do this because the hangups exist in the first place. Which was kinda my original point.

The whole point of Christian "moral values" with relation to sex is to justify these hangups by making the believer think that they are actually a correct way to feel, not hangups at all

If you feel negative towards your house mate in college because he brings home a different girl every Saturday night and has crazy sex with her, its ok, that is the correct way to feel because what your house mate is doing is actually wrong. He may be getting a lot more sex than you, he may seem to be having a lot more fun than you, but he is actually being very sinful. And eventually God will punish him. That is why you don't do this.

If you feel bad that you find out your girlfriend has slept with 50 men before she met you that is ok, you are correct to feel that way. She was being immoral, fornicating with men in the sin of lust. It would have been far better of her to have waiting until marriage so that she was a virgin for her husband. That would be the correct thing to do. Your Christian love might forgive her and accept her, but you still think there is something to forgive her for.

I should point out that the hangups over sex are not exclusive to Christians, nor are the justifications we invent for these hangups. Everyone has at least some hangups towards sex and one will often hear justifications that are totally non-religions.

The house mate who brings home a girl every Saturday night must be incapable of a proper relationship. He must be slightly dead in side, or view women purely as objects. I'm not like that, thats why I don't do what he does. He isn't happy, how could he be happy. Plus he must be riddled with sexually transmitted diseases. I don't want to catch herpes, thats why I don't do what he does, and why I'm right to feel bad about what he does.

My girlfriend who slept with 40 guys before me must have allowed herself to be used by these men. She must confuse sex with emotion, and must have been very naive about how these men would treat her. Hopefully she will have matured a bit and be ready for a proper relationship with me

Everyone, at least initially, has hangups about sex. Religion is a product of humanity so naturally the doctrine of religions reflects this.

Christianity doesn't remove these hang-ups, instead it teaches that these hangups are correct. It gives justification to these feelings. That is ultimately an unhealthy way of dealing with these.