Religion is good for your health

"rafael wrote:

I think everything in the bible is open to interpretation. Everything was put through the lens of the writer, who had his own point of view. It was then translated and re-translated back, all by people who put their own perspective on it. I could go on and on about biblical inconsistencies but the point is that language is an imprecise method of communication.

I have spoken to legislators about laws that have been passed and how well meaning courts have applied those laws. More often than not the legislators have told me "that wasn't what we meant at all". And that's despite sections after the law that are meant to explain the legislative intent. This occurs with people living in the same time period and with similar cultural perspectives.

Ohiophinphan and I spent six posts going back and forth as I explained my position on one issue until we reached an understanding. And reality is that it would still be foolish for either one of us to really believe that we have a full understanding of each other's opinion on even that one issue.

Herein lies the difference. If you say "I think" or "my opinion is" or "I believe" such and such, that's one thing. You're entitled to your opinion. There's a difference between stating that and stating that "the fact is" such and such.

I don't see how your reference to laws is applicable. No one disputes that laws passed by men are written by men. Because humans are flawed, so are their laws. G-d, as I see Him, is flawless and therefore so are his laws.

"rafael wrote:

So IMO the gist of the bible is love one another. Everything else is a tangle of opinions and interpretations about the how and why behind that.

That's actually the one thing that we agree on.

So is this good for your health or what?

"Miamian wrote:

Here it is again. My religion states that the Torah was written by Moses as dictated by G-d and has not been edited. If you state that your belief that it was edited is a "fact" then you are in essence stating that Judaism is wrong.

No, it means he doesn't believe in it. I don't believe a word of the Tirah or the Bible, doesn't mean I think you're wrong.

But let's be honest here...you don't think other faiths are "wrong"?

"Pagan wrote:

No, it means he doesn't believe in it. I don't believe a word of the Tirah or the Bible, doesn't mean I think you're wrong.

But let's be honest here...you don't think other faiths are "wrong"?

That's a far cry from "fact." Merriam-Webster defines the word "fact" as "the quality of being actual"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

To me, that means that what he says is true and that anything to contrary is wrong. That's the difference between "fact" and "opinion."

As to your other questions, I believe that my faith is correct, but I respect others' beliefs in theirs.

"anlgp wrote:

So is this good for your health or what?

This thread started out that way. It's been perverted.

"Miamian wrote:

That's a far cry from "fact." Merriam-Webster defines the word "fact" as "the quality of being actual"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

To me, that means that what he says is true and that anything to contrary is wrong. That's the difference between "fact" and "opinion."

As to your other questions, I believe that my faith is correct, but I respect others' beliefs in theirs.

Oh I know what he meant, but when you start talking religion, "fact" and "truth" become a bit blurry don't they? I mean, I've seen Christians proclaim their faith as "the Truth".

Isn't that the same thing as him saying "fact"?

"Pagan wrote:

Oh I know what he meant, but when you start talking religion, "fact" and "truth" become a bit blurry don't they? I mean, I've seen Christians proclaim their faith as "the Truth".

Isn't that the same thing as him saying "fact"?

That's exactly the reason that I take exception, someone going out of his way to say that what he believes is correct and what others believe is wrong. If you say that it's a fact that the Torah has been edited, we have an issue because my belief is that it hasn't been.

Throwing it back the other way, it would be like you or I going out of our way to say that G-d has no son. That may be what we believe but to put the label of "fact" on it shows disrespect for others' beliefs.

"Miamian wrote:

That's exactly the reason that I take exception, someone going out of his way to say that what he believes is correct and what others believe is wrong. If you say that it's a fact that the Torah has been edited, we have an issue because my belief is that it hasn't been.

Throwing it back the other way, it would be like you or I going out of our way to say that G-d has no son. That may be what we believe but to put the label of "fact" on it shows disrespect for others' beliefs.

Okay we're on equal ground then. Just wanted to understand how you were thinking.

There is one thing through all this that I think we can agree on. You Pagan and you Miamian would it seems agree with my earlier statement that there is a difference between saying "I'm right" and the seeming reverse, "therfore you are wrong".

From what I have seen of this thread, all three of us would speak positively of our religious positions without making the jump others would want or assume we would make to saying "yours are wrong". While the thread has been hijacked some from its initial intention (and for whatever part I played in doing that I apologize), honestly I like this ending.

"Miamian wrote:

That's a bit of a side-step, but I'll get to the gist of your "facts" below. It's in the Torah that Israel is to be a "nation of ministers." That statement by G-d sets Israel apart from others. Since religious Jews accept the Torah as is, then stating that it's wrong is to say that our religion is wrong.

My opinion is that Judaism is your opinion. It is as valid as mine. I accept that your opinion could be right. A truly tolerant opinion would accept that my opinion could be right as well.

"Miamian wrote:

Here it is again. My religion states that the Torah was written by Moses as dictated by G-d and has not been edited. If you state that your belief that it was edited is a "fact" then you are in essence stating that Judaism is wrong.

What I stated was that the bible was edited. Most people recognize the bible as being more than just the first five books which is what I believe is the Torah. So my statement of accepted fact was accurate. I have my questions regarding the authorship of the Torah as well, but I didn't make any statements of fact regarding the Torah.

"anlgp wrote:

So is this good for your health or what?

The short answer is that religion is good for your health/well being but less so if your religion is one that believes that people of other faiths will burn in hell.

"rafael wrote:

The short answer is that religion is good for your health/well being but less so if your religion is one that believes that people of other faiths will burn in hell.

:lol:

"rafael wrote:

My opinion is that Judaism is your opinion. It is as valid as mine. I accept that your opinion could be right. A truly tolerant opinion would accept that my opinion could be right as well.

What I stated was that the bible was edited. Most people recognize the bible as being more than just the first five books which is what I believe is the Torah. So my statement of accepted fact was accurate. I have my questions regarding the authorship of the Torah as well, but I didn't make any statements of fact regarding the Torah.

Now I understand what you're trying to say.

A bit of friendly advice: when you say the word "Bible" please do remember that it also includes the Torah, and you are right that the Torah comprises the first five books. When you make that kind of generalization, it includes others.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

There is one thing through all this that I think we can agree on. You Pagan and you Miamian would it seems agree with my earlier statement that there is a difference between saying "I'm right" and the seeming reverse, "therfore you are wrong".

From what I have seen of this thread, all three of us would speak positively of our religious positions without making the jump others would want or assume we would make to saying "yours are wrong". While the thread has been hijacked some from its initial intention (and for whatever part I played in doing that I apologize), honestly I like this ending.

I agree that there is a difference between "I'm believe I'm right but I recognize that you may be right" and "you are wrong" but is there a difference between "you are wrong" and "I believe I'm right and I have to save you or you'll burn in hell"?

"Miamian wrote:

Now I understand what you're trying to say.

A bit of friendly advice: when you say the word "Bible" please do remember that it also includes the Torah, and you are right that the Torah comprises the first five books. When you make that kind of generalization, it includes others.

Thank you.

Here's a bit of friendly advice for you: When somebody says something about the bible don't jump to the conclusion that it must refer to your section of it. When somebody says "people kill each other for everyday" I recognize that I'm included in the generalization "people" but I don't assume that he's saying that I've killed people.

"rafael wrote:

I agree that there is a difference between "I'm believe I'm right but I recognize that you may be right" and "you are wrong" but is there a difference between "you are wrong" and "I believe I'm right and I have to save you or you'll burn in hell"?

Of course there is a difference. What I am not sure is who you think in this thread said the bolded? As far I can tell no one brought that up before you have. It is true there are some who make that leap but one of the things we have tried to do in this forum is NOT make that leap and for the most part we have been successful.

Miamian and Pagan help me out here; within this forum haven't most folks (there have been exceptions and I was involved in one of them and got angry for it) not made the jump from "I'm right!" to "therefore you are wrong"?

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Of course there is a difference. What I am not sure is who you think in this thread said the bolded? As far I can tell no one brought that up before you have. It is true there are some who make that leap but one of the things we have tried to do in this forum is NOT make that leap and for the most part we have been successful.

Miamian and Pagan help me out here; within this forum haven't most folks (there have been exceptions and I was involved in one of them and got angry for it) not made the jump from "I'm right!" to "therefore you are wrong"?

This thread was about religion being good for your health. That is generally true but there is a negative correlation between health and the belief that people of other faiths will burn in hell. Now unless I'm mistaken, any religion that believes that it should attempt to "save" others is trying to save them from burning in hell because they are wrong. So I'm trying to understand how the belief that those who are wrong will burn in hell is different from the belief that those who believe differently are wrong.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Miamian and Pagan help me out here; within this forum haven't most folks (there have been exceptions and I was involved in one of them and got angry for it) not made the jump from "I'm right!" to "therefore you are wrong"?

Pretty much bro. Believe me, I'll be the first one to point it out if I see it. :wink2:

Is it religion as much as being at peace with "answers", a given person finds comforting?

If we are really saying that having any religion makes one healthier, then aren't we saying that every religion is true?

"Finascious D wrote:

Is it religion as much as being at peace with "answers", a given person finds comforting?

If we are really saying that having any religion makes one healthier, then aren't we saying that every religion is true?

Damn bro...good point.

"Finascious D wrote:

Is it religion as much as being at peace with "answers", a given person finds comforting?

If we are really saying that having any religion makes one healthier, then aren't we saying that every religion is true?

It wasn't so much the "answers" as the community connection and the service to others which I believe were most correlated to general well being. That is something that most religions share.

But the negative aspects, the "belief in hell" and that others are wrong were negatively correlated with general well being.

And BTW I do think that if more people believed in the sentiment you just expressed it would be a better world.

"rafael wrote:

It wasn't so much the "answers" as the community connection and the service to others which I believe were most correlated to general well being. That is something that most religions share.

But the negative aspects, the "belief in hell" and that others are wrong were negatively correlated with general well being.

FTR, "answers" in the context I was using it, was meant to be an all encompassing term for the "benefits" of religion (life guidelines, doctrines to follow, fellowship, etc.)

Now being someone with absolutely no religion whatsoever, I feel the notion that religion improves health to be similar to saying that the ever shrinking cell phone sizes caused newspapers to go out of business.

IMO, all faith needs to have an enemy for it to be followed passionately enough that one would consider this scenario as valid. Not necessarily a personified villain either like the devil or the villains du jour, like muslims or gays. It could be the villains of pride, lust, excess, or what have you.

So, I don't think you have the faith, without things like (to varying degrees) "burning in hell".

"Finascious D wrote:

FTR, "answers" in the context I was using it, was meant to be an all encompassing term for the "benefits" of religion (life guidelines, doctrines to follow, fellowship, etc.)

Now being someone with absolutely no religion whatsoever, I feel the notion that religion improves health to be similar to saying that the ever shrinking cell phone sizes caused newspapers to go out of business.

IMO, all faith needs to have an enemy for it to be followed passionately enough that one would consider this scenario as valid. Not necessarily a personified villain either like the devil or the villains du jour, like muslims or gays. It could be the villains of pride, lust, excess, or what have you.

So, I don't think you have the faith, without things like (to varying degrees) "burning in hell".

Interesting thought. It almost sounds like using the carrot vs. using the stick. I think some people will only try to help others, be good, etc. out of fear of punishment (hell). Others will be motivated by the reward side (heaven or feeling good when helping others). I don't know that I've ever seen a study of this but anecdotally I would guess that those motivated by the reward side would be generally happier.

"rafael wrote:

Interesting thought. It almost sounds like using the carrot vs. using the stick. I think some people will only try to help others, be good, etc. out of fear of punishment (hell). Others will be motivated by the reward side (heaven or feeling good when helping others). I don't know that I've ever seen a study of this but anecdotally I would guess that those motivated by the reward side would be generally happier.

Its typical human nature. Every religion is story based. Meaning, that it is relayed to people in a narrative format. It is how people understand their religion, it is how they relate to it. Stories have to have an antagonist. Again, that antagonist might not always be personified. Take Seinfield, it was touted as a show about nothing, but even it had plenty of villains. Everything form Newman to stupidity to human social orders. We as a people love our protagonists to either succeed or even fail against the villain. If they win, we love them because they are victors, if they lose, we love them because they are like us and they tried.

Point is religion is no different. In Christianity, we have basically two types, as you mentioned, those that follow for fear and those that follow for love. Thing is, regardless of which someone falls into, both of those categories are there because of the villain. The fear side is self explanatory to what i'm saying, so I'll focus on the love side.

People who are Christians for the love of Jesus, are that way because of the things he did in the face of villainies. If Jesus didn't sacrifice his life or cure the sick, etc. there'd be no Christians today, because he would have been just a talker. His message could have been the same, his words too, but without his triumphs over being poor, or Roman decadence, or even God's vengeance, he'd have been little more than a philosopher, and possibly not even remembered.

Faith absolutely needs strife to take hold. It is the very foundation it is built on.

"rafael wrote:

This thread was about religion being good for your health. That is generally true but there is a negative correlation between health and the belief that people of other faiths will burn in hell. Now unless I'm mistaken, any religion that believes that it should attempt to "save" others is trying to save them from burning in hell because they are wrong. So I'm trying to understand how the belief that those who are wrong will burn in hell is different from the belief that those who believe differently are wrong.

I'm not doing that, never have. Judgement is God's business, proclamation is mine. I proselytize because I believe the faith I espouse is a wat that gives peace, love, and joy.

There are those out there no doubt who do feel as you have described but take care that many of us in the Christian faith (and I can only talk of that faith from first hand experiance) who would reject the straw man you have set up just as fervantly as I have!