I am sorry if I come of as difficult to understand. Unfortunately expressing my thoughts and opinions can be limited by English being a second language.

I am not arguing the evolution of religion in societies, or the rise of institutions of religion. I am arguing the necessity of religious institutions as natural path of evolution, and institutions as element of religious origins.

When I am talking about institutions, I am referring to institutions as a physical organization instructing and influencing society as external force. A vast majority of societies today are societies where religion derives from a external culture, imposed upon by institution without social relation of own origin. Remember I am not talking about institutions as understood by abstract social connections, like a family or a community. But by systems of power and influence like seen in Christianity, Judaism and Islam to mention the examples that corresponds best.

About the rise of religious institutions, I would agree on Wrights view of it being a combination of different factors. Although it is difficult to deny the necessity of systems that functions as mechanisms of control in connection with the birth of what we often define as civilization ( Cities, nation states and centralized rule ). Personally I do not like institutions to much, as they seem to serve the needs and purposes of the established system of power more than society itself. Almost like some divine supernatural force with representatives of a superior human quality than the inferior humans it influence and guides.

" Who watches the watchmen " - Alan Moore

Vallhall wrote:I am sorry if I come of as difficult to understand. Unfortunately expressing my thoughts and opinions can be limited by English being a second language.

I am not arguing the evolution of religion in societies, or the rise of institutions of religion. I am arguing the necessity of religious institutions as natural path of evolution, and institutions as element of religious origins.

When I am talking about institutions, I am referring to institutions as a physical organization instructing and influencing society as external force. A vast majority of societies today are societies where religion derives from a external culture, imposed upon by institution without social relation of own origin. Remember I am not talking about institutions as understood by abstract social connections, like a family or a community. But by systems of power and influence like seen in Christianity, Judaism and Islam to mention the examples that corresponds best.

About the rise of religious institutions, I would agree on Wrights view of it being a combination of different factors. Although it is difficult to deny the necessity of systems that functions as mechanisms of control in connection with the birth of what we often define as civilization ( Cities, nation states and centralized rule ). Personally I do not like institutions to much, as they seem to serve the needs and purposes of the established system of power more than society itself. Almost like some divine supernatural force with representatives of a superior human quality than the inferior humans it influence and guides.

" Who watches the watchmen " - Alan Moore

Vallhall, is there a bit of the anarchist in you?

I would say both yes and no. The word Anarchist is loaded with many negative aspects making me to reject it as ideology. In fact, I am not comfortable with identifying me with any ideology. I am a man who have many questions, but hold few answers. All in all, I know humans have the capacity to function as a successful social group without any kind of external superior entity influencing. I know I am not a wild crazy animal who would go insane without any institution to influence my behavior. Neither do I regard people around me in that manner either. I see people as naturally wanting to be good, but trapped in a complex controlling social system of own creation. A system that is fueled by division, fear, threats and dangers.

Of course I could be wrong about how I perceive things. That is why I continue to question own and others views and/or thoughts. I do not know the answers, but I sure as hell would like to know them. How would they come to know, if not by asking and searching for them

Vallhall wrote:I would say both yes and no. The word Anarchist is loaded with many negative aspects making me to reject it as ideology. In fact, I am not comfortable with identifying me with any ideology. I am a man who have many questions, but hold few answers. All in all, I know humans have the capacity to function as a successful social group without any kind of external superior entity influencing. I know I am not a wild crazy animal who would go insane without any institution to influence my behavior. Neither do I regard people around me in that manner either. I see people as naturally wanting to be good, but trapped in a complex controlling social system of own creation. A system that is fueled by division, fear, threats and dangers.

Of course I could be wrong about how I perceive things. That is why I continue to question own and others views and/or thoughts. I do not know the answers, but I sure as hell would like to know them. How would they come to know, if not by asking and searching for them

I appreciate your spirit of searching, Vallhall. Our difference might be that at my stage of life (59) I tend to see institutions in a more positive light than you do. I'm using a broad definition of institution to include things like family and marriage. The way I look at it is that human society has never existed without institutions, although anthropologists would not label as institutions the social structures of simple societies. I think these were institutions in miniature, though. It's also probably true that in societies without real institutions, control over actions and thought can be more strict that in modern democracies.

You do make a good point about Christ, but he is the son of God, not a middle man.

What?

"No one goes to the Father but through me." - Pseudo Jesus

You do realize that the character of Jesus in the NT is designed to be a mediator between God and humanity don't you?

That's why Christian sects all compete with one another to claim that they are the true church of Jesus. In doing so they plug their sect into the "me" in the above verse. So Jesus is the "middle man" between God and Humanity and then each competing church aligns themselves with Jesus in order to serve as the "middle man" earthly organization between God and humanity.

And it's a confusing mess. But the deeper insight is that the corruption of the institutions traces back to latching onto the "middle man" status of Jesus in the gospels. If there's no middle man then that's just it, no middle man. Do you see where this line of reasoning begins to lead?

KarelVanCanegem wrote:I believe in God. It is natural to believe in a higher being.

My Bible Study group watched a video last night of an interview with John Dominic Crossan who made a comment about belief that made me think.

He asked, what would it have meant if someone in the ancient world had said "I believe in the Roman Empire"?

Crossan said it would not have meant that they literally believed the Roman Empire was a political entity that stretched from Spain to Palestine. Rather, this statement is a statement of value, not a statement of fact. It means that the person has 'got with the program' of the Roman Empire and believes it is the best thing for the world.

We see this today with political candidates making the statement 'I believe in America'. Again, it is a statement of commitment, of faith, and not a statement of fact. They are saying that America embodies good values, and encouraging others to 'get with the program' of patriotism.

What does this mean about God and Jesus?

It shows that the statement Karel made in the opening post, "I believe in God", is not necessarily a statement about a matter of fact, but rather a statement of what Karel considers his highest value. It is an assertion that belief in God is a good thing, with transformative capacity for cultural identity.

It makes me wonder, how deep does the confusion go within the meaning of belief?

Are believers primarily expressing a sense of commitment or a factual claim? With Karel's second statement, about belief in a higher being, it literally reads as a statement of fact. And yet, if we think of this 'higher being' as just an imaginary vision that unites people, then this religious statement can be entirely compatible with a scientific atheism. We can believe in God in the sense that it is a good thing for people to cooperate on ethical ideals. We can even believe in Jesus in the sense that Jesus is a dream of the ideal person, just as for some people 'America' is a dream of an ideal country.

Robert Tulip wrote:
He asked, what would it have meant if someone in the ancient world had said "I believe in the Roman Empire"?

Crossan said it would not have meant that they literally believed the Roman Empire was a political entity that stretched from Spain to Palestine. Rather, this statement is a statement of value, not a statement of fact. It means that the person has 'got with the program' of the Roman Empire and believes it is the best thing for the world.

The statement "I believe in God" carries both the sense of belief in God's reality and belief in God's agenda. There doesn't seem to be the same option that a physical entity like Roman Empire gives you, to take it literally or more metaphorically.

We see this today with political candidates making the statement 'I believe in America'. Again, it is a statement of commitment, of faith, and not a statement of fact. They are saying that America embodies good values, and encouraging others to 'get with the program' of patriotism.

"America is the greatest country in the world" is a deeply held fact to many, and this underlies the belief statement.

What does this mean about God and Jesus?

It shows that the statement Karel made in the opening post, "I believe in God", is not necessarily a statement about a matter of fact, but rather a statement of what Karel considers his highest value. It is an assertion that belief in God is a good thing, with transformative capacity for cultural identity.

I think it's Daniel Dennett who talks about "belief in belief" as a justification for religion that is not dependent on the literal truth of propositions. It's good for people, whether it's true or not, is the idea.

It makes me wonder, how deep does the confusion go within the meaning of belief?

Are believers primarily expressing a sense of commitment or a factual claim? With Karel's second statement, about belief in a higher being, it literally reads as a statement of fact. And yet, if we think of this 'higher being' as just an imaginary vision that unites people, then this religious statement can be entirely compatible with a scientific atheism. We can believe in God in the sense that it is a good thing for people to cooperate on ethical ideals. We can even believe in Jesus in the sense that Jesus is a dream of the ideal person, just as for some people 'America' is a dream of an ideal country.

Stephen Prothero said that atheists are obsessed with this matter of beliefs, meaning that in their eyes religion is about nothing else. Prothero reminds us that there is much more to it than that. The confusion is that belief isn't the only important thing in the first place. I don't, however, think it's possible for many people to self-consciously declare that their belief in God is imaginary and yet continue to "worship" or even be inspired by such a thing.

DWill wrote: I don't, however, think it's possible for many people to self-consciously declare that their belief in God is imaginary and yet continue to "worship" or even be inspired by such a thing.

This is precisely the problem of idolatry, condemned in the commandment not to worship graven images. Paul extended this in Romans 1 with the injunction to worship the creator and not creatures.

People continually want to take an unknown reality, such as the cosmic creative process, and explain it by analogy through abstract concepts and symbols. The Judeo-Christian tradition, and the whole Indo-European language family, uses the analogy of a man in the sky as father figure in whose image humanity is made. This imaginative analogy has over time hardened into an idol, a concept whereby people assert that something unknown is in fact known to them. This idolatry of describing attributes of God as an entity turns the creator into a creature of our own imagination. Imagination is precisely the process of engraving ideas into images.

The same thing applies with Jesus Christ. If the early church thought that the story of Jesus was an 'as if' imaginary tale of what might happen if the power of universal creation was manifest on our planet, we can envisage that the imaginative process of idolatry set in rapidly. People found they could not, as DWill put it, self-consciously worship a fiction, so they had to imagine the fiction was true. This led to the whole elaboration of the myth of Jesus in the Gospels as a graven image, breaking the second commandment not to 'make a likeness of anything in the heaven above'.

This same principle of belief also applies in non religious contexts, such as nationalism and other ideologies. Even with science, we find that people express belief in a scientific world view based on evidence, observation and reason. As soon as we say this worldview is better than others, we are on the terrain of faith, the contest for people's sense of identity and commitment. The debate over atheism is a clash of rival faiths, faith in science versus faith in God. Part of the scientific faith consists in the assertion that it is not a faith, even while it displays faith characteristics by seeking social mobilization around creedal statements in order to generate political influence.

Robert Tulip wrote: People continually want to take an unknown reality, such as the cosmic creative process, and explain it by analogy through abstract concepts and symbols. The Judeo-Christian tradition, and the whole Indo-European language family, uses the analogy of a man in the sky as father figure in whose image humanity is made. This imaginative analogy has over time hardened into an idol, a concept whereby people assert that something unknown is in fact known to them. This idolatry of describing attributes of God as an entity turns the creator into a creature of our own imagination. Imagination is precisely the process of engraving ideas into images.

The sticking point here is that you need some Golden Age when this idolatry wasn't the way of the world, when people had more enlightened thinking. Is there evidence that this was ever the case? I believe that with Daoism, to use that example, the religion began as a simple philosophy and over time the gods and other extravagances poured in. But that doesn't necessarily provide an example of people at first understanding myths figuratively and then for some reason coming over time to believe they're concrete. There probably was little mythic representation in early Daoism; when the myths arrived they might have been co-incident with the belief in the gods, and I suspect that was likely the case with other myth as well. It seems more likely that the figurative understandings of most myths is recent rather than ancient, and that you might be reading modern thinking back into history.

The same thing applies with Jesus Christ. If the early church thought that the story of Jesus was an 'as if' imaginary tale of what might happen if the power of universal creation was manifest on our planet, we can envisage that the imaginative process of idolatry set in rapidly. People found they could not, as DWill put it, self-consciously worship a fiction, so they had to imagine the fiction was true. This led to the whole elaboration of the myth of Jesus in the Gospels as a graven image, breaking the second commandment not to 'make a likeness of anything in the heaven above'.

To many of us, the Jesus story could only make sense if it is not literal, but that doesn't mean that the early church must have intended it that way. These were people totally uninfluenced by the spirit of science, exceptional figures such as Philo notwithstanding.

This same principle of belief also applies in non religious contexts, such as nationalism and other ideologies. Even with science, we find that people express belief in a scientific world view based on evidence, observation and reason. As soon as we say this worldview is better than others, we are on the terrain of faith, the contest for people's sense of identity and commitment. The debate over atheism is a clash of rival faiths, faith in science versus faith in God. Part of the scientific faith consists in the assertion that it is not a faith, even while it displays faith characteristics by seeking social mobilization around creedal statements in order to generate political influence.

It's very rare for people to reject the scientific world-view, because doing so would mean not participating in or benefiting from science. Almost no one is prepared to do that; almost everyone wants to have what science has wrought--technology to make life easier, medicine to make us healthier, etc. What we see is a cultural divide that on one side clings to conservative morals, which have traditionally been seen as having divine origin, and on the other ventures away from some of these morals while placing morality under human aegis.

In a secular, democratic society, it's not inevitable that differences in religion have to assume the proportion of a clash between great forces. These differences are actually pretty well tamped down in the U.S. when we look at the big picture. A clash existing has more credibility when we look at Islam vs. the West. We don't know yet how that will turn out.

tat tvam asi wrote:You do realize that the character of Jesus in the NT is designed to be a mediator between God and humanity don't you?

You say it very clearly: the character of Jesus in the NT is DESIGNED... As you can read in my first post, I do question the value of the bible.
So in my view Christ is not a middle man nor should he be only seen as a mediator between God and humanity. He is the Son of God and we made him into something which has caused a lot of suffering.