Hacker News Reader

Comment by k310 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

It is important to contextualize this statement. It appears in three gospels, but in each it is in response to a rich man asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Each instance of the story is told with slightly different emphasis (or they could be similar stories - i.e. this was his standard "line" for rich people), but Luke's account includes 18:27 He replied, "What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God" NET

This does not mean it's okay to hoard wealth at the expense of others, of course.

I think that Saint Basil the Great's sermon to the rich[1] is instructive for a historical and reasonable Christian instruction on the rich.

Let me add an excerpt I really appreciate: But how do you make use of money? By dressing in expensive clothing? Won’t two yards of tunic suffice you, and the covering of one coat satisfy all your need of clothes? But is it for food’s sake that you have such a demand for wealth? One bread-loaf is enough to fill a belly. Why are you sad, then? What have you been deprived of? The status that comes from wealth? But if you would stop seeking earthly status, you should then find the true, resplendent kind that would conduct you into the kingdom of heaven.

And one more because I can't help myself: Since, then, the wealth still overflows, it gets buried underground, stashed away in secret places.... A strange madness, that, when gold lies hidden with other metals, one ransacks the earth; but after it has seen the light of day, it disappears again beneath the ground.

(The whole thing is worth a read, Basil just went hard non stop)

1. https://stjohngoc.org/st-basil-the-greats-sermon-to-the-rich...

The message IS clear...but I don't see the same message as you. Solomon was /beyond/ rich. So was David. So were countless people that are destined for heaven(as in, Jesus describes them being in heaven in the new testament).

Those people all did some things we can see and talk about - and possibly many things we did not see, do not know, and can not talk about. At the very least, those people we know are in/destined for heaven: followed God, feared God, obeyed God.

I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said. Being rich may make you less likely to do those 3 things though, in which case you would correlate richness with not getting into heaven.

'I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said' -> I think viewing that some rich people go to heaven as Jesus not explicitly condemning rich people (which he clearly does multiple times) and not him showing the unlimited power of God's grace is a misreading of the text.

The subsequent verses are much less quoted but very explicit about this: And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

This is supported by other text where Jesus says explicitly what people should do with money:

Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"

So anyway it's very clear that using money selfishly (which is what many Christians do) is clearly not what God wants from us, it's just that God can love us for our imperfections and sin, which in my view is sorta the main idea behind the New Testament. God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.

> God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.

I love how you put that, and wholeheartedly agree.

It continuously blows my mind how few people on the internet understand the distinction between the Old and New Testaments.

It is not that easy. If we look at historical context we can see that for example in judaism they have this midrash:

"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and camels."

Sounds familiar? The meaning of that saying in jewish context is that we cant really understand Gods abilities.

Could the christian saying mean something else? Sure. We dont even know if jesus even said that exact phrase.

My point is more that there are often more than one interpretation of vague sayings from 2000 years that been through an oral tradition, translations and copying.

In your example the saying suggests that a Camel going through the eye of a needle is an extraordinary event like a rich person going to heaven in the traditional Christian saying.

It is incredibly clear and without nuance nor is there a reason to suppose it's an issue with translation. Its also consistent philosophically nor is it the sort of thing that the powerful would want inserted when they compiled works.

If you disregard it then it makes more sense to disregard the entire bible.

I find it interesting that they attack the camel and needle analogy when the previous line is: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." That is a pretty definitive statement and makes it clear that the camel and needle line is metaphor for the difficulty.

> In your example the saying suggests that a Camel going through the eye of a needle is an extraordinary event

So is the Son of God descending to earth and being nailed to a cross for the sins of man.

No, it is not "incredible" clear what ancient jews meant by that saying. Hence the wildly different interpretations. Are you really saying that it is incredible clear that the jewish understanding of the jewish saying is wrong and only your christian understanding is correct?

Half the planet either explicitly or implicitly believes in the just world hypothesis and America especially valorizes, empathize s with, and seeks to emulate the rich even when they do nothing to earn their wealth and on average do enormous harm.

It is therefore hardly shocking that some fail to see the plain meaning of the language and their confusion needn't imply actual credible controversy.

It is pretty clear that the saying you provided and the Christian saying are different sayings with different meanings that share the metaphor about a Camel going through the eye of a needle.

The surrounding context is Jesus telling a rich person to give his material wealth away because it is barrier to salvation. It is clear that focus on the temporal comforts privided by wealth stunts ones need for spirituality. The man cannot give up his attachment to wealth and gives up on salvation in the Christian sense.

It is hard for me to get from this that the rich are especially virtuos and therefore the only lesson was intended to be taught is that not even the rich can be saved without god.

It seems very clear that wealth was a direct impediment to salvation.

You have not provided any evidence for your claim that there is no connection between the "christian" saying and the prexisting jewish saying. The schoolars disagree with you that there exists only one single historical intepretation of the saying. You are just reading in what you personally want the text to read. Just like all fundamentalists.

You don't need to prove a negative. For any trillion combination of sayings which share 4 or more words in common no evidence exists for the connection of one to the other. The words are manifestly different save for using the same idiom about a camel through the eye of a needle.

They are again different in meaning with one being that attachment wealth is a barrier to being saved and the other being through god all things are possible. If you believe a plain interpretation of the text is in accurate the onus is on you to prove why and you haven't.

Wealth is not universally maligned in the Biblical tradition. Job is afforded material rewards in this world after his tribulation.

Prosperity gospel is plainly contradicted by the Bible (see again: The Book of Job), but so is the Redditor Christianity you are espousing.

There’s a whole sect who believes the opposite- that you are more spiritual and blessed by God the wealthier you are. Somehow being material wealthy is now a signal of your spirituality. :shrug:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

This is the outcome when pearls are cast before swine.

You just need to employ the right strategy to deal with it. Possible options include:

  1. Claim that "camel" or "needle" are a mistranslation or symbolic.
  2. Separate financial life from your spiritual beliefs to avoid inner conflict.
  3. View wealth as a sign of God’s blessing or something used to do good, making it feel morally acceptable.
  4. Emphasize other passages that support generosity or success.

In general, it's easy to overcome cognitive dissonance in religion. You just accept additional beliefs that soften it.

5. Interpret that the passage, especially in the context of the subsequent verses, is about the need for God to get into heaven. That is; it's claiming that wealth cannot empower people to find their own route in, absent spirituality.

In the flavor of religion in which I grew up, it's easier to just quickly pray for forgiveness than to bother justifying anything. The most vile genocidal maniac could pray for thirty seconds right before death and get into heaven. Why bother following rules when someone already served the punishment?

With modern technology you can probably liquefy a camel sufficiently that you force it through the needle. Jesus ain't said nothing 'bout no hydrochloric acid and pneumatic presses.

Probably easier to just make a really big needle

Yes, but that would be less entertaining :-)

It's not about the money but the ego.

The two are very difficult to separate though, I've met very few who could handle a lot of money without becoming corrupted.

This. There are a lot of biblical teaching about money and how to handle it, and to multiply it. Unfortunately people tend to make that an end unto itself and that was never the point.

Hence the Gospel of Supply Side Jesus, remade in the image of America.

https://imgur.com/gallery/gospel-of-supply-side-jesus-bCqRp

Brilliant!!

Have you ever even read the passage?

> 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

> 26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”

> 27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

This sure doesn't look like ancient Hebrew to me.

Well yeah, the gospels were written in Koine Greek

That is not true: with God all things are possible.

Could God make a man so rich that even he wouldn't let him into heaven?

No. Similarly, God cannot make a married bachelor, because this is nonsensical. The conversation then turns to questions about how we define God’s omnipotence: Doesn’t the existence of any sort of limitation placed upon God imply he is bound by higher principles and thus not omnipotent?

Possibly; but this may just be a lack of imagination on our part. For example, can God abanlqhgfznsjks? Probably not, because that particular string was just a random assortment of keys that I pressed; it conveys nothing meaningful, so to ask if God could abanlqhgfznsjks might not really be asking anything at all.

The bible portrays God as explicitly being able to do nonsensical things, like creating a burning bush that is somehow not consumed. That it was on fire, but also not on fire, at the same time, was proof of a miracle.

And more generally, that's just the nature of the supernatural in any religion. If what was going on was entirely logical, it wouldn't be a miracle.

some people freak out about the idea of a burning bush talking at people

i freak out about what the bush said: I AM THAT I AM

the first recorded instance of recursion, spoken in a language famous for its lack of abstraction, to an uneducated goat herder, communicating an idea that even the greeks struggled with thousands of years later in a much more sophisticated and leisured culture

I believe God can abanlqhgfznsjks. If a lot of bottoms can, than surely God can too.

the human mind fails at infinities

i don't know why we find this so obvious when discussing math and yet so difficult when discussing God

"I don’t know. When my bird was looking at my computer monitor I thought, ‘That bird has no idea what he’s looking at.’ And yet what does the bird do? Does he panic? No, he can’t really panic, he just does the best he can. Is he able to live in a world where he’s so ignorant? Well, he doesn’t really have a choice. The bird is okay even though he doesn’t understand the world. You’re that bird looking at the monitor, and you’re thinking to yourself, ‘I can figure this out.’ Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do.”

Wouldnt or couldnt?

That’s not what that means at all, your inserting modern values into the parable. In the culture of that time, the rich were viewed with high regard. The understanding was that if you were rich, then clearly you were in a favorable relationship to God because he was blessing you with wealth. With that understanding, the sentence that directly follows the parable makes a lot more sense: “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, ‘Who then can be saved?’” A modern telling of the parable would replace the rich man with a monk who’s taken a vow of poverty to run an orphanage in a God-forsaken third world country. The parable was intended to portray an absurdly impossible standard to entry; the whole point being that human merit, status, or morality, regardless of however the cultural context may define that, does not afford one any distinctive advantage before God.

The rich is firmly attached to wordly things, they would rather sink with their gold than let it go. The monk that you've described is attached to his self by training it with sophisticated hardships. He hoards inner peace just like the rich hoards gold. Both are practicing the culture of personality. They need to leave that baggage behind, their self-centered life and their polished personas, and reorient their life around helping others. Once they do this, an enormous internal conflict will emerge - the struggle between their selfish and selfless sides, and at the end of this path they'll enter the kingdom of God.

Those who want to climb to the mountain top need to leave everything behind. The higher they climb, the longer will be the fall if they look back for a moment and slip on this narrow path, longing for what they left behind.

Got some links to support this interpretation?

You are just wrong. The Bible never says that rich people aren't getting into heaven. Only that it will be difficult.

The whole invention of the “Eye of the Needle” gate fiction is an attempt to rewrite a Gospel statement by Jesus that it is difficult-to-the-point-of-impossibility into one that it is merely difficult-in-the-sense-of-mild-inconvenience.

What's missed is that the camel/needle thing is a joke.

The "eye of the needle" was a (very small) gate into Jerusalem.

To get a camel through that gate, it has to lower its head and crawl on its knees.

So Jesus was calling rich people camels; camels can be very arrogant beasts so it fits.

This is an incredibly common and frustrating bit of bad theology. There's no textual or archeological basis for it, and the really interesting mystery is where exactly this myth even came from.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studie...

I, too, used to be a “preachermon”. I never found evidence that this argument was anything but apocryphal.

It would make a better argument to find a text describing how Jesus referred to a rich person (real or parable) and said, “this rich person gets it, be like him”. Direct, and without the mental backflips.

it is, however, very easy to find other ways jesus has phrased the idea "the rich don't get into heaven". In matthew he says the last shall be first and the first shall be last, in acts he has his disciples sell all of their stuff and pool the money, and in several other places he tells the faithful to give all of their stuff away.

There are no primary sources for this

Dan McClellan, a biblical scholar (a practising Mormon, but not an apologist) discusses that here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzR39RVQKs

none of this is at all true, none of it is supported by the historical record, none of it is supported by the rest of jesus's teachings (which explicitly and repeatedly state that the rich are not welcome in heaven), there never was an "eye of the needle" gate, no one even posited the existence of such a gate until the 9th century CE and the other gospels use different phrasing of "a camel passing through the eye of a needle" that indicate that "the eye of a needle" isn't a proper noun referring to a singular entity with a commonly-known name.

This is literally not true by scripture; Abraham was very rich, and is considered righteous because of his faith. He did not withhold even his own son from God. Money did not own Abraham's faith.

Job refused to curse or condemn God even when he lost most of his family and all of his holdings - his friends tried to tell him that because he lost his riches, he had obviously sinned, but he refused this. He gained back the things he lost, because of his faith in God.

Job 1:20-22

20 Then Job stood up, tore his robe, shaved his head, fell to the ground, bowed very low, 21 and exclaimed:

“I left my mother’s womb naked, and I will return to God naked. The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken. May the name of the Lord be blessed.”

22 Job neither sinned nor charged God with wrongdoing in all of this.

In those times, rich people were considered blessed by God, poor people or those afflicted with disease were considered cursed by God. People afflicted from birth were said to have been "born in sin" due to the sins of their parents.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were wealthly, influential people who preached exactly this. The Sadducees in particular didn't believe in an afterlife, and so were focused on only the "here and now" and material things of this world. Jesus specifically called them out to let them know their wealth wouldn't get them into heaven, and their success was not a sign of righteousness.

Jesus distinctly preached that money could not buy salvation, and that those whose focus was on money could not focus on God, and would therefore be condemned. He explicitly called out Zaccheus, a tax collector, when Zaccheus promised to repay any money he'd taken in bad faith four times over and to give away half of what he owned to the poor:

Luke 19:9-10: 9 Jesus said to him,"Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Zaccheus probably had a lot of money left even when he was done, but the point is that money was no longer the priority in his life.

God may choose to bless people with prosperity, but your wallet doesn't make you righteous. It doesn't make you unrighteous either - your actions and your faith, or lack thereof condemn you. The whole of the Law is:

Matthew 22:34-40

34 When the Pharisees learned that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and, to test him, one of them, a lawyer, asked this question, 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Everything in the Law and the Prophets depends on these two commandments.”

> Statistics and wagering aside, IMO, he'd fair poorly (like the previous visit).

If I remember correctly...his first visit was prophesied to end exactly as it did. His next visit is prophesied to be a little different - to paraphrase...he is coming with an army to make war on the beast and all [humans] who follow him. Instead of a spotless robe like earlier depictions - this robe is drenched in blood, and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. Here's the passage immediately following description of this second coming(Revelations 19).

“Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

I don't think this visit is supposed to be like the previous one. I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. You aren't my friend, or someone that I know - but it would give me no pleasure at all to know you were spending eternity in hell. We don't get down seeing people suffer, or "you'll all be sorry when you see I'm right!!!" style feelings. If those true believers seem like a bunch of elitist jerks who are always putting you down instead of helping you up, those are /NOT/ true believers. Those are true assholes.

I propose a corollary to Godwin's Law whereby as any internet discussion of religion progresses, the chances of a Christian trying to proselytize approaches 1. Call it God-Botherers Law.

> I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. You aren't my friend, or someone that I know - but it would give me no pleasure at all to know you were spending eternity in hell.

IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.

What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing? And why would I want to worship that god if that's all true?

Hey I don't know what works for everyone, but I know what works for me. I'm encouraging you to let it work for you, but that's a personal choice and I wouldn't force it on anyone.

I don't think God wants to "trick" anyone. I also don't believe there is any hard set of "rules" he applies to 100% of humanity without exception. Take little children for instance...tragedies happen every day, and they are too young to know what those rules are, or have a chance to follow them. Those children aren't destined for eternal torture - that would be cruel and heartless - and I don't believe God is cruel or heartless.

I apologize for coming off as an elitist jerk. I didn't realize it would be read that way, and it was not my intent at all. I'm not better than you, I don't /think/ I'm better than you, and I'm too inexperienced/ignorant/prideful to even be able to know what "better" is, much less which one of us it would apply to.

All my comments, posts, and intentions are that 1 person is positively influenced by them. Maybe they go on to influence someone else, and it spreads throughout people - I have no idea what will happen that is influenced by things like my post. However, I don't think my post is going to hurt anyone - my hope is that it will help someone. Think of it like throwing seeds(in the parable!)... some of them, maybe just /one/ of them, will fall in fertile ground - and lead that person(s) to the same peace with God that I feel.

FWIW I don't think you were being elitist at all. In fact I think you've come off as very humble and full of genuine care and interest for your fellow humans. Our world could use a whole lot more of that from believer and non-believer alike.

I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times though, and nothing makes me believe the Bible less than actually reading and studying the Bible. The book of Job alone was pretty hard to reconcile, but even just harmonizing the four gospels on the important details of Jesus life and crucifixion is very, very difficult (or even impossible depending on who you talk to). I won't even get into Song of Solomon :-D

Honestly if you want people to find faith, I wouldn't recommend reading the Bible. I would recommend a mix of the New Testament (minus the Book of Revelation) plus Church attendance.

> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.

Catholics don't believe that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven. In fact, believing that you do is explicitly condemned as a heresy (Feeneyism).

That is the same with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We do not believe church membership is required to receive the glories of heaven; we do not even believe that church membership is a guarantee to get there.

As for "going to hell": we believe that everyone goes there after death, as a temporary state. It's akin to the Catholic concept of purgatory, before the resurrection, final judgment, and placement in either outer darkness or the kingdoms of heaven. Thankfully, most people that have ever lived on earth are destined for the latter, not the former.

Interesting! So in Catholicism, what are the belief requirements? Would that mean that some Protestants could go to heaven even if they've never had (Catholic) communion? (Genuine question)

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#:~:text=%22...

This lengthy text is somewhat impenetrable (at least to a non-Christian).

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-re...

That’s just one denomination. Others believe the opposite. See the problem?

> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.

Dude, that's pretty harsh and I would say quite unfair given what they've said. If he/she/they/whatever believes that we are going to Hell, wouldn't the right thing to do be to tell us and try to save us?

I do think that plenty of people saying similar things can be elitist and requires a certain level of hubris/arrogance, but I don't think that's always the case, and GP definitely didn't strike me as one of those assholes.

> What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing?

These are excellent questions/arguments and are on my top five list of "reasons I am not a Christian," and I'd love to hear an explanation from any believers if they'd like to tackle them.

But what evidence supports the theory of heaven and hell?

I mean, according to the Hindus and Buddhists, we’ll be reincarnated rather than going to heaven/hell.

We could read the Bible, or the Qur’ān, or the Vēdas, or the Buddhist scriptures, or any other religious text… but how would we know whether any of them holds truth?

That's the whole point of faith. You're supposed to believe despite evidence.

Why should you believe despite evidence?

Because if you don't, you'll face social ostracism, physical censure, and a promise of deferred spiritual punishment.

When those pressures or promises of rewards aren't present, people rarely stumble into any particular religion.

(Which is why, of faith, hope, and charity, only charity will remain with us in heaven / in the beatific vision)

You have faith that your choice is the right one!

There are approximately 10,000 religions in the world. What brain damage do I have to receive in order to believe that I have any realistic statistical chance of picking the right one?

you don't pick one at random. you pick one that makes sense. what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? that alone will narrow down the selection to a few dozen if that many. besides the good it does, another question could be: what makes sense to you? which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.

This is the "by their fruits you shall know them" argument (which I think is among the stronger arguments for the record), but I've personally used this to try and find a "correct" religion and what I discovered (personally of course) is that there is good and bad in essentially every religion. Using this as a standard is basically impossible.

But if you took it at a high macro level and did narrow down to a few dozen, those are still terrible odds. If I have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the wrong religion and being damned, I think we need a better standard of evidence to narrow this field a bit. Unless of course you believe that a loving (some would say omni-benevolent) God would think it's reasonable to torture 97% of his children who are actively searching him out, just because they picked the wrong church. (that's not even considering all the others of course).

once you have narrowed it down, it is reasonably realistic to deeply investigate the remaining ones.

there is good and bad in essentially every religion

have you looked all the major ones listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

for me the standard of evidence is the search for the truth. that means, keep searching until i am satisfied. it could take a lifetime, and maybe that's the point. don't just make a choice and then blindly accept everything from then on.

Your comment is a manifestation of this weird double standard that gets applied to atheists/agnostics where they’re supposed to be burdened to “find answers” and it’s a problem that they don’t have that religious burden.

It also manifests in this sort of insulted vibe that religious people get when their faith is questioned.

Basically, it’s socially not okay to question the faith of someone in a particular religion because it’s their culture, it’s their belief system, but the atheist/agnostic “belief” system isn’t respected in the same way. The person who has not found any evidence of god as described in various religions is told to seek enlightenment as if they are the ones who are incomplete.

People who use the scientific method don’t “pick at random” when there is no available answer. They test for answers and wait until they observe the answers and have the ability to reproduce those observations.

In short, the religious expect the non-religious to be afraid of dying and to be looking for a solution, when it’s completely valid and logical to have determined that there is no solution and therefore it is not worth spending time dwelling upon.

i expects everyone who questions any religion to do that search. whether they believe in god or not. if you question something, then it is on you to go find answers. even if you found your belief system that works for you. maybe especially if you found one you should always keep your eyes open and investigate your own beliefs, and not just blindly accept it.

This is still kind of backwards. The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything. There is no obligation to obtain a belief system. Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.

The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything

not accepting something blindly IS the same as questioning something. or reverse, if you do not question your beliefs then you are accepting them blindly.

There is no obligation to obtain a belief system

i didn't say there is, except maybe that rejecting all belief systems is also a kind of belief.

Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.

again, i didn't intend to make that claim. if anything that was more targeted at those who do follow a particular religion and stopped asking questions.

Your arguments are a bit unsatisfying to me, though.

> what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good?

I try to have a positive impact on the world by being vegan and donating to (secular) humanitarian organizations. I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this (although I’m open to a good rebuttal!).

> which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today?

I think that the secular scientific tradition does better here than religion (even if it isn’t perfect, of course).

> take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.

I did that, and it doesn’t look good for religion, as explained above. And yet, here we are with one of the parent commenters telling us that we should believe in the Bible, lest we burn in hell.

Hence my comment above: what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it (or any other religious scripture) over my current ideals?

I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this

that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that.

what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it

i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide.

as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?

The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you want to convince me to change my beliefs, you should provide a compelling argument.

If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims.

(Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)

first of all, i am not making the claim that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers. i am making the argument that if you want to find out if they are giving better answers or any answers for that matter, then you need to research them.

i can tell you what i believe but i am not here to represent any particular religion, and i can't speak for all the religions. you will get better results and answers if you look at each religion yourself, and come to your own conclusion.

Ah, but the original claim (not by you) that I replied to and that spawned this subthread was:

> I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart.

This seems to be somewhat different from what you’re arguing now, though.

For what it’s worth, I shared my beliefs (veganism, humanitarianism, and the scientific method), and I still think that if you believe that your beliefs (religious or not) hold more truth and/or usefulness than mine, you should be able to (at the very least) provide some pointers to relevant literature.

again, i don't want to make the claim that my beliefs are in some way better. that would be hubris, and that's a big reason why i want you to do your own research.

but here are a few points that relate to the current discussion:

science and religion must be in harmony. that is, they should not contradict each other. if there is a contradiction (in any specific point) then one of them is probably wrong. to resolve that difference science needs to do more research and religion needs to get a better understanding of the claim. perhaps there is an interpretation that can explain the discrepancy.

religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement. if it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable.

there will be a time when humanity will learn to live without meat. but today is not the time yet. that doesn't mean i'd believe that being a vegan today would be wrong, but rather that not everyone lives in a position where they can afford to give up meat because they have nothing to replace it with.

most religions are ill-equipped to deal with the problems we are facing today. religions need to adapt and renew themselves to be able to address the questions we are having today. the return of jesus plays a critical role here.

independent investigation of the truth. everyone should do their own research and study of religion. we can't leave that to priests or other studied leaders. those played a role in times when people where illiterate and depended on others to do the studying for them.

this is why i am hesitant to tell you what i believe, or what you should read, because in discussions like this it easily comes across as telling you what you should believe, as the example you are quoting shows. but that is precisely what i don't want to do, because that would be wrong. you need to find your own answers. that doesn't mean that i think reading the bible would be wrong. it's just not enough. you should also read about all the other religions, at least the major ones, if only to get a better understanding about the different beliefs that the people in this world today are holding. it is probably not necessary to read all the holy writings of each religion, at least not unless one of them piques your interest and you want to learn more.

> again, i don't want to make the claim that my beliefs are in some way better. that would be hubris, and that's a big reason why i want you to do your own research.

Well, we’re on a discussion forum, so the point is to discuss our opinions, not to claim that we’re better than another :) I think it’s unfortunate that you wouldn’t share some of your beliefs; we could have constructively criticized each other’s beliefs, and thereby sharpened our critical thinking skills. Alas.

> science and religion must be in harmony. that is, they should not contradict each other. if there is a contradiction (in any specific point) then one of them is probably wrong. to resolve that difference science needs to do more research and religion needs to get a better understanding of the claim. perhaps there is an interpretation that can explain the discrepancy.

My take is that religion is an encoding of human morality [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44127397], but that the prevailing religious texts are outdated compared to our current understanding of the world.

> religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement. if it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable.

Agree, but I think that the correlation between religiousness and harmony is not as strong as many religious people seem to claim. I think it is hard for many religious people to imagine a-religious harmony, because religion is such a foundational part of their worldview.

> there will be a time when humanity will learn to live without meat. but today is not the time yet. that doesn't mean i'd believe that being a vegan today would be wrong, but rather that not everyone lives in a position where they can afford to give up meat because they have nothing to replace it with.

Agree, with the caveat that most HN readers are in a position to replace meat, and that eating plants directly is more efficient than feeding animals plants and eating the animals (IIUC). However, I can’t possibly claim to know whether it’s possible for every culture on Earth.

> most religions are ill-equipped to deal with the problems we are facing today. religions need to adapt and renew themselves to be able to address the questions we are having today. the return of jesus plays a critical role here.

See above.

> you should also read about all the other religions, at least the major ones, if only to get a better understanding about the different beliefs that the people in this world today are holding. it is probably not necessary to read all the holy writings of each religion, at least not unless one of them piques your interest and you want to learn more.

Agree, but I don’t think this approach precludes not believing in any of them.

———

For what it’s worth, I do believe that most religions include many valid moral guidelines (‘love thy neighbor’, etc.), but I think most of them also include many infamously unproven teachings (the existence of a creator and afterlife/reincarnation).

I think it’s unfortunate that you wouldn’t share some of your beliefs; we could have constructively criticized each other’s beliefs, and thereby sharpened our critical thinking skills.

actually, i'd love that. i just had some bad experience doing that in public where uncharitable readers can chime in. my email is in my profile. how about we continue the discussion there?

prevailing religious texts are outdated compared to our current understanding of the world

it's not that the texts themselves are outdated, but that peoples interpretations of those texts is. for example when the bible claims that the world was created in seven days, we today know that this can't possibly be true, therefore this text can't possibly be meant to be taken literally. it also means that it was never meant to be taken literally, but the people who did take it literally lacked the scientific understanding to realize that.

but this problem may also occur with a religious text written today. when a discrepancy is found it doesn't mean the text is wrong, but our interpretation of it is. or maybe the scientific findings are faulty. it's no different than having findings that contradict a scientific theory. either the theory is wrong or the findings are in error. the interpretation of a religious text is just like another theory.

the correlation between religiousness and harmony is not as strong as many religious people seem to claim

well, that to me is an indictment of those religions, and rightly so.

most of them also include many infamously unproven teachings (the existence of a creator and afterlife/reincarnation)

well, the problem here is that these are by their nature either unprovable or we simply lack the scientific knowledge to verify or falsify them.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. this is the leap of faith that a believer in science needs to do. it is fine to reject claims that can clearly be proven wrong (such as the age of the earth) but for anything that can't be proven we need to keep an open mind. that doesn't mean to blindly accept it. keep that skepticism, but at least allow that those claims are at least in the realm of the possible, specifically because we have no way to prove otherwise. to reject god or the afterlife without proof is just as much an act of faith as is to accept them.

He's coming back as a lion though right? We seem primed for authoritarian Jesus (in America at least)

Yes exactly, first time he came as lamb, next time as a lion. It's going to be ugly, and people rejecting him isn't going to stop it.

Disclaimer: No longer a believer so take with a grain of salt

And I seriously doubt he would approve of Christianity as practiced in general.

Well as practiced by supposed believers. He said there will be many to whom he’ll say “I never knew you”. And I expect they’ll be actually surprised, until they really compare their actions to what he taught.

non-believers always seem to be the expert in that sort of thing

Hypocrisy is always easier to see from the outside. That said I do think non-believers (such as myself) often have unreasonable and unrealistic "standards" for what they expect from a Christian.

That said many Christians I know are much harsher critics of other Christians who don't live their beliefs than most of the atheists I know, and IMHO that's how it should be.

Oh dear, who cares what anyone believes?

I can read, and I have read the whole thing, several times, I know what Jesus taught. And it's perfectly obvious that very few so called Christians even come close.

If he shows up like he does in Revelation it's going to be a bit more dramatic than the first time around.

> If he shows up like he does in Revelation it's going to be a bit more dramatic than the first time around.

Yeah, for sure. They'd best hope that he don't return anytime soon if the Christian bible's description of his return has any validity to it, because he's supposed to return with a flaming sword and a host of angels behind him, and he's likely to be raging pissed at the majority of (Christian) humanity for the way they've twisted his words and teachings.

Especially the 3rd, which isn't just about swearing.

As a non-believer I am worried what will he do to us.

This comment and subthread has nothing to do with the central topic of the article. It's the epitome of a generic tangent, and has caused just the kind of hellish flamewar that we are most trying to avoid on Hacker News.

Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Please don't fulminate.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

fare* poorly

Typo. I believe I checked the difference between fare and faire, and chose fare (even it reminded me of a subway token). And it came out fair.

Perils of posting late at night, I guess. hattip.

Story of my life, my friend

Reply on news.ycombinator.com