@epe

Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand, and they will stand as a single one." (Gospel of Thomas, verse 23)

Actually, the claim that "real" Christians are "vanishingly small" is consistent with the Bible and Apocrypha.

The reason is as I've stated before, citing Matthew 13. People have cause to love or hate religion, and this love or hate affects their information-processing system. This is a well known consequence of affect on cognition, and a lesser known consequence of cognition on affect. By "well-known" I mean that it has scientific backing in the sociology literature.

Very few people are ever stable enough individuals to be in a position to regard things without either love or hate. We are prone to either, but not neither. We tend to either love or hate things in some measure. You say that you may have some "resentment" which falls into the "hate" category. Broadly speaking "love and hate" can be translated to "positive and negative affect". Which covers a broad range of human affect, from mild discomfort up to florid hatred with resentment lying in the middle somewhere. A non-dual state that is neither positive or negative toward the subject is incredibly rare, but it's what is required of the text.

@epe

Now you are appealing to popularity on the issue Epe. You should know that this is a logical fallacy. Just because 100 million self-titled "Christians" think one thing does not mean that what they think is the end-all and be-all of Christianity.

@epe

How so? I'm not claiming anything supernatural attributed to "God". You are missing my point because you keep referring back to your received interpretations. I am here arguing that God is an entirely ontological term which is identical in definition to "Reality" or "Nature". So if "God" is supernatural, then so are "Reality" and "Nature" and your point falls flat. Honestly, I think my original point stands, you have a reason to dislike religion and so you continue to bring your own absurd interpretations to bear on the discussion, when my own is dramatically different and does not include any supernatural claims.

@epe

I agree with the view of language offered by Julian Jaynes in his cult classic "The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". His view, which is also shared by other linguists, is that all apparently abstract forms of language evolved out of metaphors for familial relations.

Jaynes argues that all of our terminology which we now regard as abstract or secular has its origins in older terms which referred to the family or basic human actions. I do not agree with some of Jaynes' etymology, but I can offer a few examples which I have independently discovered. For one; the term "Universe" comes from two Latin terms, neither of which means "Universe" but when combined gives a sense of the definition. Those two words are Latin "Unus" and "Vertere". The term "Unus" means "One" or "Singular" and the term "Vertere" means "To turn", the combination of the two words means "To turn on itself". So here we can see that the term "universe" which appears to us to be incredibly abstract and unrelated to a simple quantity or behavior is actually derived from a simple quantity and behavior, something turning on itself.

The purpose of pointing this out is to show that these kinds of terms are new in history. The term "Universe" is only as old as the 12th century, and was not in common use until around 1480. Which means when the Bible was written there was no such term as "Universe". Likewise the term "Cosmos" comes from Greek Kosmos meaning "Good Order" (a term used sometimes to refer to God or his creation). This term was not commonly used until the 12th century. "Nature" is not in common use until the 13th century and comes from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget".

These words which take as oppositions of the term "God" did not even exist at the time when the Bible was written. Of course the term "God" didn't exist either, it has it's origins in PIE "-ghut" meaning "That which is invoked" or Gk. khein "to pour,".

The Jews used the Tetragrammaton to refer to God which is an acronym consisting of four Hebrew letters (Yud, Hei, Vav, Hei) sometimes depicting as "JHVH" and then it has been phoneticized as "Yaweh". But the four elements of the Tetragrammaton refer to four aspects of reality as acknowledged by the Jews. In Judaism there is no name for God as a whole, but there are names for varying aspects of God; e.g. Hashem, Havayah, Adonai, etc.. each of these names refers to a different aspect and are sometimes called "The Power, The Glory" or "The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit" in Christianity, rather than using the Jewish names.

In general it is considered to be a grave error and a sin to fall into idolatry over the name of God. God does not have a name because to name God is to place God on the same footing as all finite things. It is too easy for the mind to misinterpreted a name, so the Jews maintained a tradition of not naming God directly. This is paralleled in other traditions, for example the first line of the Tao Te Ching (Taoism) reads: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." and the Muslims have thousands of names referring to different aspects of God and officially none that refer to God in totality.

So, if you are taking modern terminology back with you 2,000 years or so to the writing of the Bible you are committing an error of historical accuracy, because none of these terms existed. The terms which did exist did not refer to the totality of God, in order to avoid the potential for misinterpretation. It is my belief that the language of the time was primarily familial and did not contain words which would allow one to distinguish from the family. Hierarchies of all sorts were described in terms of familial heirarchies. The "Father" was largely considered to be the head of the family, so when talking about the all-encompassing reality, they referred to it as the "Father" of which we are all "Children".

This metaphor is still widely in use when referring to heirarchies of all sorts, consider the previous example of referring to Nature as "Mother". "She" is given the title of "Mother" because it conveys hierarchy through the well-known familial term.

@epe

But this is no different from H.G. Wells saying "Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative."

Nature "herself" metes out rewards and punishments for our behavior. If I wish to lose weight and attempt to do so by some method which is not amenable to "Natural Law" then I am sure to not lose any weight at all, I may even gain some. Nature has laws, called "Natural Law", which is hardly any different from "Divine Law". The imperative to obey them remains the same, nature punishes and rewards us according to "her" law. How is this any different?

The problem runs pretty deep. When the Jews looked upon the temples and statues constructed in the name of Zarathustra and Ahura-Mazda (a Persian creator God) they assumed that these statues were literal depictions of the Gods which the Persians worshipped. The same could happen today with Atheism, if one took the statue of "Science" outside of the Boston Public Library - which looks like a woman holding a crystal ball - as a literal depiction of "Science" then it would be easy to dismiss "her" existence as absurd. It is easy for us to see that this depiction of science is a mere parable, a metaphor carved in stone, but when we look upon the metaphorical carvings of another culture we are prone to see them as literal depictions and thereby completely miss the point of them.

As alluded to above, in the modern secular world we have no qualms about anthropomorphizing Nature and adorning her with feminine and human properties. "She" is even given the title of "Mother". So why is it that when the bible says "Father" in reference to God it is not immediately obvious to us that it is metaphorical?

I'll tell you why, because we don't want to believe that. Because most of us have built up an identity around a different set of beliefs. Either we believe that the term "Father" is a literal reference to a human figure because we cherish such a belief, or we believe so because we hate said belief and wish to condemn others who hold it. We have cause to misinterpret things which we identify ourselves either with or in opposition to. This is why in the Vedantic school of Hindu philosophy there is a doctrine (called "Advaita Vedanta") which is sometimes given in English as "Non-duality" and it is a state of mind sought after by Hindu meditators. In Buddhist parlance it is a state of "Non-attachment", or in SDT vernacular it is having a self-esteem which is "noncontingent" on any domain.

"Beyond love and hate everything becomes clear and undisguised." - Advaitatoons.blogspot.com

I should have mentioned a 9000 lbs elephant in this regard is the Danish philosopher/theologian Soren Kierkegaard. His work "Practice in Christianity" is a masterpiece and if comprehended punches massive holes in the logic of popular Christianity (particularly in the West).

"When we receive a package we unwrap it to get at the contents. Christianity is a gift from God, but instead of receiving the gift, we have undertaken to wrap it up, and each generation has furnished a new wrapping around the others." - Soren Kierkegaard

Some excerpts and other teachings of Kierkegaard: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Kierkegaard/Kierkegaard02.html

@epe

I think the bulk of modern Western Christianity is misguided and deluded. Which is why I am primarily drawing on ancient scripture and the teachings of the upper eschelon of the Catholic Church. The Jesuits are also a great source of this information, and in particular a fellow named Anthony de Mello who was also a psychotherapist as well as a Jesuit. Thomas Merton, Abbot Placid, Father Thomas Keating, Pope Benedict XVI, Arius, these are a few example of members of various sects of Christianity which preach the view of Christianity which I am hear describing. These are not the Fred Phelps or Ray Comforts that you find in the Bible belt of the USA. These are people who dedicated their lives, largely in solitude, to understanding the teachings of the Bible.

The problem with religious fundamentalism in the United States is precisely that their self is contingent upon their version of Christianity. They have invested so much, lifetimes, generations, everything they have into these beliefs. Which is quite a bit different from the Jesuits of St. Ignatius of Loyola, who perform "spiritual exercises" for the sake of understanding the scripture. They do not immediately assume a literal understanding, but "meditate" for the sake of understanding. It is similar to the Zen practice of meditating on a Koan. A Koan is a parable, story, riddle, fable or similitude that, when meditated on, should produce philosophical/spiritual insight. It is not enough to simply "think about" the Koan, you must meditate properly, which requires some skill and at the very least an understanding of why it is necessary.

You are talking about people who don't meditate on the teachings. You are talking about 4,5 or 6 generations of distorted dogma being passed down unquestionably from one generation to the next. Yet, if you look at the practices of the Catholic Church, or of Zen monks, these are not treated like literal stories, but riddles to be cracked by the penetrating mind. So yea, there are plenty of people who distort the teachings to fulfill their needs for psychological security and postiive self-regard, but, as I've just shown there are plenty, particularly in the East, who do not take this passive approach to religious teachings.

@epe

There is plenty of evidence for what I am saying - that religions tend to get distorted by people self-seeking (i.e. seeking comfort, positive self-regard, etc..).

And this is what the Bible teaches in so many more words. For example it says "Those who measure themselves by themselves are not wise." This refers to the act of social comparison, or the need for positive self-regard (self-esteem, also called "Ego" in many spiritual/religious traditions). In Christianity this "Ego" or need for positive self-regard is called "The Sinful Nature", "The Flesh" and "The Old Man".

Determining that this is what is meant is one thing, and then determining whether or not its true is yet another thing. If you will allow me to translate the religions terminology into modern psychology terms than I can show that the teachings of the Bible are essentially captured in Self-Determination Theory (e.g. Deci, Ryan, Tangney, Crocker, Leary, etc..)

This theory can be grounded in the functional analytics of the self-conscious mind as offered by Thomas Metzinger in his book "Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity". I want to stress this point, that if the teachings are properly understood they can easily be translated (perhaps using a Rosetta Stone) into different terminology. Christian teachings can be translated into Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Amerindian teachings, and they can also be translated into the "secular" terminology of modern cognitive neuroscience or social psychology.

At base, our brains are attempting to construct a model of reality, we do not have direct contact with reality. Rather information comes into our sensory organs and is actively reconstructed into a conscious image. Within this conscious comic-book version of reality there resides at the center of it all a "Self" or "Ego". That is the sensation that "I" exist independent of other things. But the truth is that each of us is a collection of nearly 100 billion nerve cells connected together in sophisticated ways with each other, totalling nearly 400 billion synapses (connections). In other words, the "Self" is "a heap of composite qualities" (Buddha). The sources of which recede infinitely into the causal nexus that comprises "reality". But rather than use the term "Reality" the Buddhists frequently use the term "Buddha-nature" and the Christians use the term "God". One Christian monk, Abbot Placid, said "You can think of 'Reality' when I say 'God'"

Going back to Anselm's Ontological Argument; if we simply ask ourselves what is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" we should arrive at "Reality" or "Nature" or "Universe" or "Multiverse" or something like this, because these are, in our secular world, the greatest things which can be thought. Not only are they the "greatest" in the sense of being the largest and most powerful, but they are also the "Greatest" ontologically speaking - which is why it's called "The Ontological Argument". "Universe" is such a broad thing that is encompasses all other things. There is nothing which is not in the "Reality". Thus, "Reality" is the greatest thing which can be thought. Now, "Reality" so conceived does not have a body either, if "Reality" had a body then it would not be reality, the defining characteristic of reality is that it is not a finite thing, as all other things are, but it is an all-encompassing, all-powerful thing. There is nothing which exists outside of "Reality" and everything which does exist is said to have the property of being "Real".

However, these terms are all synonymous: Reality, Nature, Existence, God, Universe, etc... And it is really quite senseless to say that "Reality exists" it is doubly more absurd to say "Existence is real" because the word "is" is another synonym of "existing". To say that something "is" is sufficient, to say that it "is existing" is redundant. To say that "Reality is existing" or "Existence is real" is three times the redundancy. So, long story short, what is meant by "God" is another synonym of "Reality" and "Existing" and "Is". You may hear sometimes from newagers about this "Is-ness" or "One-ness" and they are here talking about "Existence" in this all-encompassing conception.

These are rational assertions, some of which cannot rightly depend on "evidence". Since the "evidence" is entirely in how we use the terms. Nevertheless, you can discover the "vicious circularity" of dictionary definitions to assist in this realization. The "vicious circularity" consists of the fact that the dictionary cannot provide an adequate definition of any of these terms without simply appealing to one of their synonyms. The dictionary definition of "reality" is sure to say something like "Having the quality of existing", and then when you look up "Existing" in the dictionary it is sure to say something like "Having the quality of being real". The definitions refer back to each other and this is called the "vicious circle" of definitions. It is peculiar to the case of defining Existence since any other thing is merely a finite aspect of existence which can be defined in relation to other finite things, but reality/existence itself does not lend itself to other things with which to make any comparisons. Rather, each of us already knows what reality/existence is, and hence it is said that "Only the fool denies God", as it would be foolish to deny "Existence" it's place as the head of all thought.

Immanuel Kant called this totality of all thought "Omnitudo Realitatis" (all that is), and argued that all thought was predicated on it. That is, for example, in the act of perceiving the color red we are doing so entirely in relation to perceptions of other colors. This truth holds in modern neuroscience, we now know that conscious color perception is the result of a color-opponency process, whereby each color is created and defined in reference to all the other colors which we perceive. They are complimentary concepts that do not act independently at all. The same is true of shades, black and white are not independent shades, but we know only of black by virtue of it's relatedness to white (See e.g.: The Neuroscience of Nothing by Richard O. Brown on youtube). So these colors are to the color-opponency process as all thought is to "the All", and it is this "All" which is referred to by both "God" and "Nature".

In de Animalibus by Aristotle he writes "Nature (Gr. Natura) so-called because it is that from which a thing originates, that within which it is sustained and that unto which it terminates. Some people call this 'God'". This speaks to the fact that God versus Nature has always been a false dichotomy - at least since Aristotle - because both have identical meanings.

I can provide immediate scripture rebuke of several "pillars" of modern Christian thought, or what Christianity is widely believed to be, and some of these beliefs are common to Christianity in the west:

1) That God is a man: As I argued above, none of the representatives of the church have ever expressed this belief, quite the contrary.

2) That Jesus Christ is God/Good: "Why do you call me good, no one is good but God alone". (Mark 10:18). The dogma of Jesus as the "Only begotten son" originated from the First Council of Nicea c. 300 A.D. during the debate between the Trinitarians, represented by Athanasius and the alternative position (that Jesus is not God at all) represented by Arius. Athanasius won the favor of the council and the dogma won its place in the church, but not without qualification. Jesus is not literally God anymore than any of us are literally God. Yet, it is the "Christ" which is the "Only begotten son". The "Christ" is equivalent of saying "the Word" and in Greek it is written as "Logos". The Logos is the "Creative reason" which manifests itself in Nature. So, the "Christ" (Logos) is the "Only begotten son" not Jesus the flesh and blood human being. Jesus had a certain kind of philosophical insight which meant that he had knowledge of the Logos, which is how he became "Christened". In Kaballah - the esoteric branch of Judaism - this is called "equivalence of form".

"The world is a product of the Word," Benedict XVI stated, "of the Logos, as St. John expresses it. [...] 'Logos' means 'reason,' 'sense,' 'word.' It is not reason pure and simple, but creative Reason, that speaks and communicates itself. It is Reason that both is and creates sense." - Zenit.org

3) That God gave us Free-Will: "Therefor it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." "Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor" (Romans 9). This teaching is paralleled almost exactly by Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha):

"It is as if a potter made different vessels out of the same clay.
Some of these pots are to contain sugar,
others rice, others curds and milk;
others still are vessels of impurity.
There is no diversity in the clay used;
the diversity of the pots is only due
to the moulding hands of the potter
who shapes them for the various uses
that circumstances may require.

And as all things originate from one essence,
so they are developing according to one law
and they are destined to one aim which is Nirvana." - Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha)

So, a lot of these claims that you hear from low-level intiates into Western Christianity are really just complete misreadings of the text, and in most cases they aren't even the result of reading the text but from listening to others claim what the text says.

@epe

1) Many religions contain apparently bad ideas, but that doesn't mean you either A) have to believe everything they say is false, or b) reject them wholecloth.

What atheists fail to realize is that you commit the exact same errors of judgement in reverse, but feel they are justified because you are convinced that religion is bad. So your errors of reason and judgement get a free pass. This is exactly what I've been saying, our identities cause us to commit one-sided errors in judgement in support of our existing views.

The doctrine of Karma is misrepresented here, Karma/Reincarnation simply means "Cause and Effect", think of it like the "Law of Conservation Mass-Energy". The energy remains while the form in which it is expressed changes. During oxidation of wood the wood "dies" - is burned up - and the "energy" is released in the form of heat and smoke. This smoke and heat is the "reborn" wood that has undergone oxidation. This is what reincarnation means, that the burning of the wood causes heat and smoke.

"This rebirth, this reincarnation, this reappearance of the conformations is continuous and depends on the law of cause and effect." - Gautam Siddhartha (Buddha)

I will literally have to go through all of your claims one by one to show how they are fundamentally misinterpretations of religious teachings. In general, there are no supernatural entities in religion, properly understood, but because of idolatry, because of the pursuit of self-esteem, people misinterpret the teachings to be more suitable to their desires for a father figure, heavenly bliss and eternal life. None of these religions actually promise any such things. The terms "dead" and "reborn" or "rerisen" refer to the spiritual transformation encoded within the text, it refers to a kind of ego-death or death of self-seeking. When someone says during a difficult task "I'm dying here" or when it is hot "This heat is killing me." this is the kind of metaphorical usage of "death" in religion.

In order to understand what I'm trying to illustrate, you need to understand that all of your received perceptions on religion may in-fact be completely and horribly misguided. Only then can you see that doctrines like that of Rebirth, Karma and Reincarnation have been distorted from their original meaning by those who are seeking self-esteem (idolaters) rather than any genuine inquiry into the truth of the matter.

"Children are trained to want to do as the society says they have to do. They have to earn their prestige in definitely fixed ways. The result is that people willingly propagate whole cultural systems that hold them in bondage, and since everyone plays the same hero-game, no one can see through the farce. - Becker (1971, p.86)

Interesting, I knew Germans were terse and to the point when it comes to business relations. But one would think that, somewhere between Fromm, Kant, Nietzsche and all the other German Transcendental Idealists (In particular the Frankfurt school) would have influenced them in the other direction. But maybe Joy isn't that important to them, maybe they are happy to be joy-less. Assuming Happiness and Joy are not the same thing.

So when it says something like "God the father" or even "the earth shook" these may only be parables approximating a deeper truth. If we listen to the great Italian Poet Dante Alighieri, he suggests that much literature, or at least his own, is Anagogical. He says his work must be interpreted with a four-fold method of understanding the literal, metaphorical, allegorical and anagogical interpretations. Dante's Divine Comedy (includ. Dante's Inferno) is not simply a literal bed-time story, rather it is an Anagogical (spiritually-significant masterpiece) which needs to be actively decoded by the reader. The Bible is the same kind of thing, in particular the sayings of Jesus Christ as he is quoted as saying in the above three verses.

@epe btw consider the following three verses from Mathew 13 in light of what I said about having a sense of self-esteem opposed to the teachings of Christ and how that position can distort perception of the teachings:

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

@epe Your example is a good example especially of football fandom. But the situation is a little bit different with non-religion, because there are people who do not attach themselves to religious identities, but there are also those who have an identity as being anti-religious. You look at someone like Christopher Hitchens and it's pretty clear that he was anti-religion. On the other hand someone like Sam Harris was more of a moderate non-religionist, he actually does find a lot of value in Buddhist wisdom. No, there are no anti-football-fans, but there are anti-religionists. I'm talking about those people who built up a social identity around their hostility towards religion and who have earned the praise and adoration of others for doing so. They will be encouraged more-so to commit violent acts against religion.

But apart from committing violent acts there is also the cognitive biases that are employed for the sake of maintaining one's own identity. In debate, generally, people employ cognitive biases, even formal logical fallacy with the goal of validating their position. For example; it can be adequately demonstrated that none of the acknowledged Saints or Popes have ever regarded God as an entity of human form, yet this is a position constantly pushed on them by "atheists". Perhaps there are fringe cults like the Westboro Baptists who believe that sort of thing, but it has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church or of most Christianity. Yet, Atheists are vehemently unwilling to accept that the charge of "belief in a God-man" is not part of Christianity. Moreover, Anselm's ontological argument has nothing to do with this concept, as both Anselm and Aquinas adequately explain in their writings. With respect to Anselm's ontological argument, Aquinas had this to say "Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body."

Of course "something than which nothing greater can be thought" is the precise wording of Anselm's ontological argument so this is a reference to Anselm's argument. Aquinas is saying that the argument does not lead to a bodily concept, though many think it does. For many Atheists, I have found, they are unwilling to let go of the claim that Christianity teaches that God is or has a body. They rather insist that Christianity amounts to nothing more than the belief in a God-man floating around on a nimbus cloud zapping evil-doers, but this is actually just the Atheists propensity to distort the teachings of something which they have set themselves against. I.e. they have established a personal identity in contradiction of, and therefor are motivated to distort the information for their own purposes. This creates unnecessary conflicts without any good coming from it.