In my opinion the best remark concerning religion was made by the Roman, Seneca:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

Dear David F.,

«In my opinion the best remark concerning religion was made by the Roman, Seneca:»

Regarded as best by whom?

Religion is presently regarded by the common people as nonsense, but some of them at least have the decency to admit that they don't understand it.

The wise can distinguish between true religion and the social nonsense which often, through ignorance, passes for religion.

And the rulers should wet their pants in fear of the religious because they do not need them and their favours, nor are afraid to die, thus of punishment and of telling the rulers' weaknesses and corruption in their face.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I wrote:

«In my opinion the best remark concerning religion was made by the Roman, Seneca:»

You wrote:

<<Regarded as best by whom?>>

Since I wrote 'in my opinion' it should be obvious who regarded it as best. Since you don't seem to read well, I regard it as best. That's what 'in my opinion' means. True religion? I think it's all crap. Apparently you prefer to label some of the crap as true. That's your right.

Dear OzSpen

Whether you agree with Sean Winter’s views on the bible and abortion is irrelevant. I was quoting him to demonstrate that David f’s view that the Bible is a not a source of reliable historical facts is a common one among mainstream academic bible scholars and theologians, and your rather insulting comment that David’s position is based on lack of “homework” does not hold water.

I don’t disagree that there is a sound historical basis to the NT. Nor does the quote from Winter deny it. The key questions are – how much is historical fact, and how much does it matter? Some fundamentalist Christians think it is almost all literally true, and some fundamentalist atheists think it is almost all invented. I don’t agree with either position, and nor do most academics.

As to the views of leading theologians, probably the most influential of the past 200 years was Karl Barth, who said “I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally.” Barth’s view of the Bible (and much else!) is complex, and he was an equally trenchant critic of liberalism and literalism. There’s a good summary here:

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/karl-barth.html

John Crossan is one of most articulate critics of biblical literalism:

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are dumb enough to take the literally.”

- From Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus

Others you might wish to look up include Moltmann on the virgin birth, Rahner on fundamentalism, Schliermacher on divine non-interventionism, Tillich on Theism, Thomas Merton on the resurrection (http://merton.org/itms/annual/09/Merton1-7.pdf), and John Polkinhorne on miracles:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0824524063/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0824524063&linkCode=as2&tag=musionscieand-20

Dear Rhian,

Thank you for that. I am most interested in religion and think there are valid insights to be found in it. I will look up your references. I am turned off by those who refer to 'true religion'. 'True religion' is what they choose to believe. I am also turned off by those who believe they have a vision of the supernatural. If something is truly supernatural we cannot know what it is. I believe in doubt - asking what we know - questioning what we hear. I think we learn and grow more by doubt rather than faith. To me faith is a vice. It means to me giving one's mind and thought to something somebody else says is so. At the moment I am reading two histories of philosophy. Grayling's history rejects any idea of the supernatural or God but has the virtue of including Indian, Chinese, Arabic and African philosophy. Kenny’s history confines itself to western philosophy and is divided into four sections – ancient, medieval, rise of modern philosophy and modern philosophy. At the end of each of the four sections is a chapter which tells how people at that time thought of God. That tells me a lot about the people in that era.

I do not believe in any religion but am intensely interested in what other people believe. Amid the various insights found in philosophy and religion are valid guides for behavior to each other. There is joy in learning. By my grandmother’s bedside when she died was a history of the French and Indian Wars. She came from Lithuania and settled in the Adirondacks in New York State. The French and Wars told her more about the history of the Adirondacks. She wanted to know more about the history of where she was living. I am 96 and hope to learn more as long as I live.

Dear David F.,

«I am most interested in religion»

Is that so?

You do seem to be focused on organisations that CLAIM to be "religious", their various belief systems and especially their misdeeds. There is nothing wrong about such interest, but all that fluff does not amount to religion.

Let me provide an example, an analogy as to why I doubt that you are interested in religion: suppose you have a particular interest in studying scammers and their sophisticated techniques to convince their victims that they can "make money fast". Does that imply that you are interested in making-money-fast? Of course not!

Surely you are sufficiently intelligent and experienced to not buy into and fall prey to scams of sorts, so why here? Some people claim to be religious and you just fall in, hook, line and sinker. Why?

Now:
It must be either possible or impossible for people to come closer to God. Right?

From my long acquaintance with you, my impression (but please correct me if I am wrong) is that you consider it absolutely impossible - and that's perfectly your right.

However, saying that it's not possible for one to come closer to God is equivalent to saying that religion does not exist. It's a corollary, and in that case, here you just claimed to be most interested in something that does not exist.

That is fine. Many people like fiction and are considered normative so long as they don't actually believe in dragons and magical spells.



«I am turned off by those who refer to 'true religion'. 'True religion' is what they choose to believe.»

Well, that would refer to my recent words:
"The wise can distinguish between true religion and the social nonsense which often, through ignorance, passes for religion".

Just please note that I never claimed that my own (or anyone else's) beliefs constitute a true religion. Religious people could potentially believe in anything... or nothing. In my view, an atheist too could be very religious even without believing in God, gods or the supernatural: none of that is required for being religious!