If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

[PDH]

Not a very good job from God then.

Au contraire.  It is a great job.  You get constant reinterpretation of the metaphor displayed in an increasing level of cultural interaction with the religion in a nice feedback that is adaptive.

Religion needs to be, above all else, evolutionary.

[garbon]

Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.

[Tamas]

Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.

My education about the Old Testament was that it was a collection of literature, and probably one of the chief aims was to preserve valuable pieces, that is why softporn could also be included, later to be excused by complex theories, by the sex-averse Christians.

[merithyn]

Not a very good job from God then.

Au contraire.  It is a great job.  You get constant reinterpretation of the metaphor displayed in an increasing level of cultural interaction with the religion in a nice feedback that is adaptive.

Religion needs to be, above all else, evolutionary.

Well said.

[Tamas]

Not a very good job from God then.

Au contraire.  It is a great job.  You get constant reinterpretation of the metaphor displayed in an increasing level of cultural interaction with the religion in a nice feedback that is adaptive.

Religion needs to be, above all else, evolutionary.

So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?

[Valmy]

So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?

Sure seems that way. 

[Razgovory]

If I bothered, I could write a post about explaining the differences. Can YOU do the same, analyzing the difference between "son of Good redeeming sins of mankind with his death" and "everyone gets a planet"?

Sure.  Now tell me why you believe in magic markets and not magic withering of the state or the countless other stupid beliefs out there.  Why is your stupidity better then their stupidity?  That's the question you are asking in the OP right?

Are you seriously making economic/political theories and religious fairytales equal? God damn, son.

I am willing to concede a bit on the literal interpretation thing, good points by Meri and garbon.

However, your comparison is totally retarded.

So stuff I think is stupid is not equal to what you think is stupid?  Why?  Why is one stupidity better then another?  What I'm making equal is stupid things.  Why should one stupid thing be better then another stupid thing?  This was your original question wasn't it?  What garbon and meri are talking about is irrelevant.  That's not what you are really asking.  You see two beliefs that you believe are wrong.  Since they are both wrong you want to know why person would pick one over the other, right?  I ask the same of you.  Why do you adhere to one stupid philosophy over another?

[PDH]

So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?

Depends on one's view.  Religion is a universal cultural practice, one of the few humans have.  It constantly is interpreted and changed as times change.  The evolutionary nature of religion follows the same methods as social and culture change over time.

Now, if one is taking a strictly literal view of big God on his throne in the sky, then one might interpret it this way...or, one might not.  You seem to be arguing an absurdist argument here, akin to "let's take the premises to their illogical extremes to show how dumb people are" when in reality you are simply missing the beet wagon.

[merithyn]

So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?

And we're back to free-will....

It could be argued that it's that way to filter out the chaffe. Those who would use God's name to abuse others go straight to hell.

[Razgovory]

I was giving Tamas the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was drunk and not trolling.  I may have been wrong on the second one.

[Tamas]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.

[garbon]

Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.

My education about the Old Testament was that it was a collection of literature, and probably one of the chief aims was to preserve valuable pieces, that is why softporn could also be included, later to be excused by complex theories, by the sex-averse Christians.

Which is odd considering that Judaism has reasoning on the metaphorical aspects of Song of Solomon.  At any rate, why would anyone have that in a holy text if you had to take it literally?

[garbon]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true.  And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.

[Razgovory]

My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".

But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.

Ah, so it was a troll.  Okay.

[Tamas]

Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.

My education about the Old Testament was that it was a collection of literature, and probably one of the chief aims was to preserve valuable pieces, that is why softporn could also be included, later to be excused by complex theories, by the sex-averse Christians.

Which is odd considering that Judaism has reasoning on the metaphorical aspects of Song of Solomon.  At any rate, why would anyone have that in a holy text if you had to take it literally?

That last point is true.

HOWEVER, at one point in ancient history, somebody HAD to want listeners/readers to believe things like Genesis be actual truth. Maybe the first one to doubt that and start teaching it as allegory was born millenias ago, but then he was the first who realized he is believing in made-up stuff but kept from admitting it even to himself