Two things. You have to show that bible readers are better citizens than non believers. Experience has not shown that to me. Then that atheists would be more likely to commit crime due to lack of religious instruction.
There are a lot of atheists on this panel. I suspect they are good citizens for logical and sane reasons. The truth is that once you reject religion you have to develop a reason to act properly. That is a personal truth. You can not pray your errors away or get dispensation for them. You did it ,you face it. Transgressions are then inescapable and self diminishing
It seems to me that the loudest bible thumpers are the least to be respected. Robertson, Bush ,Oral Roberts: jet setting golfing buddies with the rich and powerful. Show me a priest with 2 sets of clothes and I’ll show you a hypocrite.
Being irrational, it does make them more willing to put up with a ruler that’s tyrannical or crazy, however; it answers the “why do we put up with him ?” question.
Probably, but it would likely be a better religion. Christianity and it’s relatives are bottom-of-the-barrel religions IMHO. I’ve heard it called “anti-human” and “a cult of guilt and death”, and I agree.
The OP specifically asked whether religious writings maintain order, not whether religion does. Is the distinction significant? For much of history, the common person was illiterate, and wouldn’t have known what the Bible said directly, just through what the church authorities told them. Arguably, it was Martin Luther’s reading the Bible for himself that sparked the Protestant Reformation.
If you have a written standard, it can be used, not only by the religious authorities to hold the common people to a certain standard of behavior, but also vice versa: the common people (assuming they can read it) can hold the religious leaders to account, and see whether or not they’re living up to “God’s Word.”
It’s not really that much different, I basically just rephrased it. Because only the people who believe in the Bible are the ones who are controlled by it, right? 
I just made my question more direct, which I should of done first off, my bad. 
Sure, I personally would call it order. Think about what would happen if people didn’t think they would make it to heaven for killing someone. Or think about how much adultry would be commited if the Bible didn’t exist, or theft, or coveting… As you said, it may be a small minority, but it may also be a large minority. It’s really un-measurable, because it isn’t like that. We DO have the Bible and millions live by it.
To me, having that book in existance has a profound effect on the order or people’s lives, well, the ones who follow it anywho.
What I would like to know is the statistics on people who believe in the Bible and the ones who don’t that have commited murder and other terrible acts. For instance, did Jeffery Dahmer believe in the Bible? Did he have faith? Which leads to your remark here:
Which are very good questions. I’d like to know this as well. Wouldn’t it be cool if there were another world where there were no religion and no bible, just so we could see how they live? Thanks for your input.
I can’t find a cite, but I do recall studies that show that religious people in general are less moral than atheists. Less helpful, less charitable, less honest.
This is just my opinion, but I think that the reason why Christianity became so popular is because it’s a “cult of death.”
There is a dark aspect to humanity to which this sort of thing appeals. The notions of acesticism, for example-- self-harm becomes a badge of honor. (Think of the monks and nuns who used to starve and whip themselves and glory in the maggots which infested their wounds.) Self-denial is still a point of pride among some Christians.
Hate is very pleasurable. Christianity exploited this aspect of human nature-- hating unbelievers and then believers who didn’t believe enough. It provided comfort through witchcraft allegations: your child didn’t just sicken and die because that’s the way of life. No, it was malevolence-- one of your neighbors must be a witch. (It’s always comforting to find someone to blame for the bad things which happen. Today, we use lawsuits instead of witchcraft allegations.)
It comfortably stratified society. Every Christian could feel that they were better than a Jew or a Muslim simply by dint of belonging to the “chosen” group. They didn’t have to feel bad about exploting or killing those people because they could be dehumanized because they weren’t Christian. Wealthy people could feel good about their status and scornful of the poor because it was believed that God put people in their circumstances for a reason. (Actually vestiges of this feeling still exist today-- we still blame the poor for being poor and consider them immoral.)
I don’t think Christianity changed mankind-- I think Christianity flourished because it fit neatly with what people wanted.
Well I do agree with your post, not just the section I posted, but it’s an issue when people are UNhappy with a higher authority is when bringing in a higher power helps out.
Part of your post brings up the human ‘higher’ authorities of teachers, doctors and the like. I think most of us in our development, realise that there is nothing special about these people and they are just as human as us - yes they are trained in a certain way, but still are just as human and can be wrong.
As for the employer issue, that is a non-issue, it is a mutual belificial realtionship. Your boss pays you to do x for payment Y, if your boss finds that job x is worth payment Y and you find that doing job x is worth payment y then both benefit, no higher power needed, if it’s not worth it to you, you can tell your boss where he can stick his job.
And now we get to:
Democracy works because it is enforced mob rule, most of the people want X, and will kill, jail or fine you if you don’t comply. I think most people realize that gov’t rule is not perfect but it’s the best option going for now. I’m sure most here have broken laws that they think is immoral, such as speed limits that are set too low, or drug laws.
Yes, they can be wrong, you’re right. But the chances that they are are much less than I as an untrained person. What’s the success rate for heart transplants? I don’t know off the top of my head, but let’s say it’s 50%. What if non-doctors performed them? Then it’d be 0%. They can be wrong, but it’s a level of wrongness that’s much more acceptable than anyone else. Their authority is deserved.
But I think your point is this; we need an infallible authority, one who can do no wrong. Only then can we be truly happy with a higher authority. And I actually agree with that to some extent; we want the person in charge of our lives to do the best possible, whether that’s our god, our president, or our doctor. You’d want someone who has a perfect success rate to take the chances with our lives.
However, humans don’t just want an authority to be perfect, they want an authority to be* like them*. We want them to share our ideals, and even less important things like language or background. We’re happier when we can relate to an authority. Hence the vast majority of gods have male and/or female identities, resemble ourselves or recognizable things when we imagine them or depict them in art. And we want to be able to comprehend an authority’s thoughts, not just rely on handed down edicts. I guess what i’m trying to say is; yes, we’d like a perfect authority. But we’d prefer that authority to be understandable, too. And while doctors or presidents may not fulfil the first characteristic, they do a lot better on the second.
Can you fire your boss?
Can your boss fire you?
Do you assign work to your boss?
Does your boss assign work to you?
Your boss is an authority. They tell you what to do, and (to a small extent) control your life. You can quit, yes; and leave that hierarchy altogether. But he/she is an authority over you.
But the U.S. is not a democracy; it’s a republic. You don’t vote for what you want to do, you vote for the people who decide what to do. You vote for an authority.
Well for one, we wouldn’t have had the crusades would we?
Check out Saudi Arabia. (Hint, I’m not saying the whole world would be a desert)
Since the term fire means that the boss ends the agreement, it can only apply to your boss firing you, but there is a term for you ending the agreement with your boss, which is to quit. Just because there are different terms doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.
You have agreed to do something for pay, if things are modified along the way you don’t have to accept it and can end the agreement at any time, you can even end it even if things were not changed. This does not equal authority, but a agreement of work for pay, and pay for work - a trade.
Congrats, you are one of the few dopers who know this little tidbit, I actually was going to post this, but stopped since it seems most don’t accept it.
But they aren’t terms for the same thing but in a different direction. You yourself can quit. Your boss can quit. Your boss can also fire you, against your will. You don’t have the power to remove your boss against his will.
But again, the same is not true the other way around. You cannot change your end of the “deal” - your pay - and expect your boss to accept it.
I agree that what’s happening is like a trade; you’re supplying the manpower, for which you are paid. But your boss has authority over you, since he has greater power over that trade, and is ranked above you in the company.
Just to take your argument to it’s logical extremes, I could say God isn’t an authority. Our “trade” - my worship for him and acting in ways he suggests, for his love and eternal life (mix and match according to your own beliefs) may be canceled by both parties at any time; he can just drop me, and I can not worship or act in those ways. What’s the difference that makes God an authority and not a boss?
Really? I mean…one of your two (relevant) political parties are the Republicans, after all.
Anyway, my point was that if people weren’t happy with a fallible, human authority, a republic wouldn’t work. And yeah, there are people who aren’t happy about the U.S. system. But it still exists, because most people are.
This argument did apply to European and colonial American societies before the United States. After the American Revolution, not so much:
I agree that it mainly applied to non-representative governments, but even in representative governments we see a call to a higher power called here ‘Creator’ and the unalienable rights come from such a Creator. It is using God as justification for the authority structure of the US Government.
Yes, there have been threads about it, and even though the political party names have nothing to do with different forms of government, I suspect that the move from the US is a Republic to the US is a Democracy has to do with people wanting the Democratic party to be associated with the US form of government. This is not just with dopers, but even some computer games, one Civ game had the advancement of democracy represented by the Statue of Liberty, while republic represented by the Aparthanon (or some other old Greece building).
It is also more deceptive to call the US a demoracy, and tend to justify the authority of the governement.
Well I don’t see it in the same terms, I don’t believe that worship is required to get to heaven. It is a simple choice, you can live with God or not for the rest of eternity. The way to spend your eternity with God was stated by Jesus - Believe (in God) and be baptized (by the Holy Spirit) - that’s it! Now if you choose to worship that is your choice and may have something to do with your place in heaven, but not getting into heaven.
So in a way God is a authority only to the extent that we allow Him to be, and we have the choice to exclude Him from our lives (for a bit here, and/or for eternity). So yes, it is like a job in that respect we can leave at any time and not get paid, or we can continue to work and get paid.
I’m not quite sure what this means–the Declaration of Independence uses God as justification for the people setting up whatever authority structure for their government “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”, which authority structure the people can change if they think it prudent to do so–you certainly can’t use the Declaration of Independence to claim that any particular “authority structure” has divine sanction, since the whole question of authority structures has been left entirely in human hands. Separation of powers versus a parliamentary system, or representative versus direct democracy; no one can look at the Declaration of Independence and say “no, we can’t structure the government that way, God hasn’t approved it”.
It’s certainly a far cry from “stopping the question” of “why should I obey the local ruler, as he is just a man like myself?”–the Declaration says you don’t have to obey the local ruler, unless you consider it prudent to do so and that obeying the local ruler will best guarantee your own safety and happiness. And the Declaration explicity says that the rulers of a free country are not going on God’s authority, but on the people’s authority.
When societies started to form ,it became logical that stealing from neighbors would cause problems. Killing them would also. Religion may have codified the behaviors that society required to survive. But I think the proper behaviors were clear long before… The laws of society would be the same with or without religion.
The way I read it is in short God allows man to rule the way man wants to (thus the devine authority). If man doesn’t like the way he is being rules God allows man to overthrow that oppressive government and impose one by man. Also the DoI was relavent only when we wanted to break away from England (well when 1/3 of us wanted to break away), but obviously no longer applied in the mid 1800’s with the War of Northern Agression aka the Civil War.
So, God allows oppresive tyrants to rule, then he allows the people to rise up and overthrow the oppresive tyrants and institute democratic republics. And I suppose if the people elect a new oppresive tyrant, or God will allow that too. Or if the people just feel kind of silly and elect Paris Hilton president, I guess that would be OK with God as well. Doesn’t really sound like God does much, does he?
Of course the God of the Bible is nothing like that (if the Bible is to be believed)–he raises up kings (Saul) and deposes kings (Saul, again) and sets up new ones in their place (David); every government rules by his authority, and to rebel against the king is to rebel against God (Romans, chapter 13).
But there’s certainly nothing Biblical about the Declaration of Independence.
Just consider Him the Great Great Delegator.
Like other people said, there are two very different questions here. Christianity, the way it developed, became authoritarian and dogmatic. There are religions that are not like that. All religions influence the thoughts and actions of the people who practice them, but in almost every case the religion and culture of a people are symbiotic; one reinforces the other. A great deal of European art and literature is profoundly influenced by the bible, but even if the bible were not there people would have made art. The religious art inspires emotions and sparks thoughts that might not occur in quite the same way if that art had been influenced by another religion, and causes changes in cultural development.
A lot of animistic religions have stories that explain how such-and-such happened or why The People do such-and-such. They are pretty obviously reasons made up after the actual behavior or thing that they explain. More complicated religions tend do things more proscriptively rather than descriptively and therefore have more of an influence on the host culture. Monotheistic religions tend to have the strongest prohibitions and exhortations and therefore exhibit more thorough control of the people subscribing to them.
You do know that despite what Adherents.com claims, there are a lot of people in the world who are only nominally Christian? Their conversion is in some cases within the memory of people living today. There are still lots of non-Christian nations, those who have only loosely adopted Christianity, and people who do not subscribe to any monotheistic religion. I live in one of them.
Japan at one point kicked all the Christians out, crucified a bunch of them, and closed their borders for a couple of centuries. Basically everyone follows two main religious traditions: Buddhism and Shinto. Shinto is basically an animistic non-doctrinal religion and is used for mostly life-affirming ceremonies. Buddhism is used for death and afterlife-related issues. Shinto got a bad rap in WWII when it was promoted as the Japanese answer for an overarching religion. My interpretation of that is that the Powers That Be saw the control and unifying vision that Christianity gave the European nations and consciously decided to use Shinto as a tool to control the people.
That use of Shinto was outlawed after Japan’s defeat and since the new interpretation was only in place for about a generation or so, it fell back into what it was before; a kind of folk religion. Neither Buddhism or Shinto is a very strong or controlling belief system. The very fact that both are followed in the same nation and that neither has stamped the other out after 1200+ years of coexistence speaks to that. Japan could be used as a decent example of what a country would be like if the bible never existed. It’s certainly not the only place, just one that I’m personally familiar with.
Up until the age of exploration there were hundreds or maybe even thousands of religions. Just about every single human group had a different belief system, so that the number of religions was roughly equal to the number of different languages spoken. That is greatly reduced now, but even so, there are hundreds of millions of people who have barely heard of the bible even today. If by “the world,” you mean Europe on the other hand, then I’d say that we’d just have a lot of different religions. We might have had fewer wars over the last 1500 years or so, or we might have had more due to increased factionalization, but I think that they wouldn’t have been as massive and bloody as the religiously-motivated ones we did have in our history.
In contrast with my long-winded answers above, this one can be answered with a simple no. There are long lists of things that were prohibited in the bible that we have no problem with now. When was the last time you went through the cleansing ritual, including exorcism by a priest, when your house was affected by mildew? (Leviticus 14:35-53) How about wearing mixed fibers? (Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:11) Sure, the dropping of some of those things is easily justified, but the fact of the matter is that there are all manner of things that are clearly prohibited in the bible, some with quite brutal punishments, that most people don’t even know about.
Written law predates any version of the bible and no human society in any time could have existed without some rules. Limiting things just to the US, there were hundreds of Native groups living here for thousands of years before Christians came. As far as I know, none of them had strong doctrinal religious traditions. Yet, they were able to form quite large societies. South America is most famous for several large urbanized societies, but North America had a few large organized societies too. The The Iroquois had a constitution, the Creek lived in large permanent towns, and the Cherokee were one of the largest societies that remained relatively intact until fairly late in the colonization period. Mound structures all along the Mississippi river attest to the size and organization that some pre-Columbian societies reached even thousands of years ago. Those societies would never have existed without some kind of law, even if we don’t have any existing records of it.
Much law isn’t even associated unambiguously with religion. Others have pointed out Hammurabi’s Code. While he states that the gods inspired him to write them down, there are only references to the gods at the beginning and end of the stela, and many of the punishments have to do with monetary fines for infractions. There are indications that Hammurabi was simply organizing and making clear older oral traditions. Babylonia was a mixed society, so the laws were probably based on universals from many different cultures.
I think that much of the religion that has existed mixed in with law is more of a justification or explanation of why to do it that way rather than another. The laws themselves seem to be pretty well universal. Most of the laws from the Code, written about 4000 years ago, are not terribly foreign at all, though the restitution would do more than raise a few eyebrows. That’s not that big of a surprise. People are people, after all. No matter where or how we live, we have the same basic needs and because we all share some of the same thought patterns we’ll tend to do things in roughly similar ways.