NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering why, if humans are logical beings, why deities don't just set out a clear set of guidelines.

Why do they always have to be so vague?

Why, after hundreds, and even thousands of years in some cases, are there still such heated discussions about what was meant by this phrase, or that word. Why do some parts appear to contradict themselves?

I mean, if Buddha was so enlightened, why couldn't he express himself more clearly. If the bible is the word of god then why doesn't he say what he means?

EDIT: OK so Buddha is a bad example as he is not strictly a deity.. but he is still vague

Buddha was not, and I can't emphasize more clearly, not a deity. He pretty clearly said that over and over; in fact, speculating about the existence of God is utterly meaningless within Buddhism and can be considered a cause of suffering, going against the underlying principles of the religion.

Buddha was not, and I can't emphasize more clearly, not a deity. He pretty clearly said that over and over; in fact, speculating about the existence of God is utterly meaningless within Buddhism and can be considered a cause of suffering, going against the underlying principles of the religion.

Not to mention that the underlying principles of Buddhism is that it enlightenment cannot be taught, one must gain it themselves, so to speak. Words cannot explain it, is another way of putting it.

leaving buddha out of it (he hasnt been heard of recently due to be dead for a very long time) im thinking that the whole "worship me, im a diety, heres some words of wisdom" thing was a passing fad in the supernatural overlord crowd.

it became passee a couple of millennia ago and just hasnt been able to stage a comeback. *shrug* maybe if some diety trendsetter came along it could be revived but barring that, i dont hold out much hope for a new new new testament.

There is also a text of sorts in Buddhism, called the Tripitaka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipitaka

The canon it contains is widely varied, from discourses on Gautama's life to Sutras that monks memorize and recite.

I mean, if Buddha was so enlightened, why couldn't he express himself more clearly. If the bible is the word of god then why doesn't he say what he means?

Putting aside the fact that he isn’t a deity, nor claimed to be one, I understand him pretty well.

In fact, Jesus too, is pretty easy to understand.
What’s hard to understand is the bullshit rationalization of those that claim to follow him.

Buddha was not, and I can't emphasize more clearly, not a deity. He pretty clearly said that over and over; in fact, speculating about the existence of God is utterly meaningless within Buddhism and can be considered a cause of suffering, going against the underlying principles of the religion.

Ok so Buddha was a bad example. I agree that Buddhism is mostly not associated with deities etc though Mahayana Buddhism is often very mystical and Buddha is sometimes portrayed (along with his pantheon) as a bit of a deity.

I guess I was just trying to broaden the concept beyond Judaeo-Christian type religions so as to make it less of a flamefest.

The central point stands though as I think it would be tough to argue that most religious texts/teachings are anything but vague.

I'm an apolytheist. I variably believe in all gods, or no gods. I never said I worship any of them, though.

So, feh.

I was just wondering why, if humans are logical beings,

Your initial assumption is flawed.

Ok so Buddha was a bad example. I agree that Buddhism is mostly not associated with deities etc though Mahayana Buddhism is often very mystical and Buddha is sometimes portrayed (along with his pantheon) as a bit of a deity.

I guess I was just trying to broaden the concept beyond Judaeo-Christian type religions so as to make it less of a flamefest.

The central point stands though as I think it would be tough to argue that most religious texts/teachings are anything but vague.

maybe they just SEEM vague because they werent written for US. texts that are thousands of years old, written in a different time, a different culture, a different technology, in a different language might just suffer in the translation through the ages. 4000 years ago they might have been spot on.

Putting aside the fact that he isn’t a deity, nor claimed to be one, I understand him pretty well.

In fact, Jesus too, is pretty easy to understand too.
What’s hard to understand is the bullshit rationalization of those that claim to follow him.

Yeah you can get the general gist of what they are talking about .. but try getting some specifics.

Sin is a pretty central element of a lot of religions, but try getting a definitive list of sins...

I mean in christianity (which being an aethisit living in a christian society is about the only religion I have a very good idea about) the 10 commandments was a good start.. but that apparently didn't cover everything. Even though God bothered to carve it into stone there are all sorts of ammendments.

eg apparently homosexuality is a sin.. but its not mentioned in the 10 commandments.. whats the deal with that?

I mean if people are supposed to be leading a good life then why make it difficult for them to understand what is expected of them?

maybe they just SEEM vague because they werent written for US. texts that are thousands of years old, written in a different time, a different culture, a different technology, in a different language might just suffer in the translation through the ages. 4000 years ago they might have been spot on.

Society has changed a lot since a lot of the texts have been written... but people haven't really changed much at all. Pretty much the same wants desires etc just the specifics are changed. People want cars instead of horses, Hamburgers instead of gruel... etc..

But surely a step by step plan would have been just as useful back then as it is now?

I mean if people are supposed to be leading a good life then why make it difficult for them to understand what is expected of them?

Live well, and treat others well.

The gist of both Buhda and Jesus’ teachings.

Your initial assumption is flawed.

Indeed. Besides, being vague is probably more fun.

Is [violet] Max Barry? Think on this... and why we've never gotten a clear answer.

Live well, and treat others well.

The gist of both Buhda and Jesus’ teachings.

But what constitutes living well?

How do I know if I am living well or living poorly?

Living well according to Buddha and living well according to Mohammad may be quite different things? How do you know if its not outlined clearly. Why would they make it more difficult than it has to be?

Following on Ashmoria's line previously, the texts are quite clear, for the people that needed them.

The Kashrut (kosher laws) are great for anyone wandering around a desert, but tend to leave one wishing for more in urban north america. If proper medicine had been around back then, and the jews weren't nomadic, the laws would not exist. Now they seem dumb.

Your initial assumption is flawed.

yeah I realise I was being a little generous with the whole logical bit.. but still I don't think it detracts from wondering why religions are so vague about what they are suggesting.

If they are divinely inspired surely they should be reasonably good at getting their points across?

But what constitutes living well? How do I know if I am living well or living poorly?

Well, if you follow the teachings of the religion you'll probably know that you're living well. In most cases, of course, those moral teachings are pretty close in line with what other systems deem moral; most core moral truths are pretty universal.

Living well according to Buddha and living well according to Mohammad may be quite different things? How do you know if its not outlined clearly. Why would they make it more difficult than it has to be?

Well, it is outlined clearly...in your religious faith.

Following on Ashmoria's line previously, the texts are quite clear, for the people that needed them.

The Kashrut (kosher laws) are great for anyone wandering around a desert, but tend to leave one wishing for more in urban north america. If proper medicine had been around back then, and the jews weren't nomadic, the laws would not exist. Now they seem dumb.

So why were they put out there in the first place?

People are essentially the same.

If NU is right and the idea is to live well, then surely the definition of living well shouldn't really be effected by where or when you live?

And if it is effected.. where are our updates?

Society has changed a lot since a lot of the texts have been written... but people haven't really changed much at all. Pretty much the same wants desires etc just the specifics are changed. People want cars instead of horses, Hamburgers instead of gruel... etc..

But surely a step by step plan would have been just as useful back then as it is now?

but darlin', if you are going to write a book that covers all people in all times and all cultures its gonna have to either be pretty vague or HUGE.

besides, like i said before, the "all powerful diety passing down the wisdom of the ages" thing is gone by. im sure they intended to update the texts to cover the proper usage of digital watches but dieties just dont have enough of an attention span to keep it up past a millennia or so.

If they are divinely inspired surely they should be reasonably good at getting their points across?

They're like politicians. If they actually say something they run the risk of someone proving them wrong, so they don't. And besides, all the good money is in the interpretation, you know: "what Baal really meant is..."

Well, if you follow the teachings of the religion you'll probably know that you're living well. In most cases, of course, those moral teachings are pretty close in line with what other systems deem moral; most core moral truths are pretty universal.



Well, it is outlined clearly...in your religious faith.


See even that is a pretty vague response?

If you follow the teachings you will be living well? but the teachings pretty much just say live well... I am not really getting how that is not vague...

The specifics are just not there. Rules are apparently made to be broken, contradicted or not even stated.. I am just wondering why?

Why does spirituality in general have to be so vague?

If morals are so universal why can't they be spelled out at some point? Why do they always have to dance around the edges instead of outlining the central core?

They're like politicians. If they actually say something they run the risk of someone proving them wrong, so they don't. And besides, all the good money is in the interpretation, you know: "what Baal really meant is..."

Well, yeah. If a God comes out and says explicitly what is expected and gives unequivocal proof of their existence, then it sort of destroys the concept of free will that human nature is built on.

But what constitutes living well?

How do I know if I am living well or living poorly?
You know you are living well when every moment of your life is content. When you have come to understand life in more than a material sense, and you are expressing this understanding through altruistic actions towards others, you are living well.
Living well according to Buddha and living well according to Mohammad may be quite different things? How do you know if its not outlined clearly. Why would they make it more difficult than it has to be?
Well, that’s because Mohamed was a brute and a tyrant. :)

It's not deities that are hard to understand. It's the clergy that has a vested interest in making them hard to understand so they can gain and maintain control over people.

They're like politicians. If they actually say something they run the risk of someone proving them wrong, so they don't. And besides, all the good money is in the interpretation, you know: "what Baal really meant is..."

Heh.. yeah they are great human reasons... I can see that that makes a lot of sense if you are not divine and you are interested in religion as a tool.

But if you are a Deity and you want people to live well then what purpose does it serve to make understanding what is living well so tough?

Well, yeah. If a God comes out and says explicitly what is expected and gives unequivocal proof of their existence, then it sort of destroys the concept of free will that human nature is built on.

That'd be so, except that the concept of free will is not universal. Many cultures believe in predestination and repeating cycles. I guess that for them a deity that speaks clearly would just ruin the surprise.

S
If morals are so universal why can't they be spelled out at some point? Why do they always have to dance around the edges instead of outlining the central core?

Free will. If morals were clearly spelled out and God's existence was beyond doubt, we wouldn't truly be free.

That'd be so, except that the concept of free will is not universal. Many cultures believe in predestination and repeating cycles. I guess that for them a deity that speaks clearly would just ruin the surprise.

That's true as well. I think all cultures have their own explanations for the nature of their Gods.

But if you are a Deity and you want people to live well then what purpose does it serve to make understanding what is living well so tough?

Because deities are smug evil bastards that only think of their own benefit.

"Yeah, I could make things easy for you, but it's nice to get all the attention"

Well, yeah. If a God comes out and says explicitly what is expected and gives unequivocal proof of their existence, then it sort of destroys the concept of free will that human nature is built on.

So what you are saying is that its an internal thing? That there is no wrong or right, just what feels right to you?

I mean if thats the case then why have a texts at all?

Surely most religions are about having a right way to do stuff and a wrong way. Sure you can choose not to follow all the expectations (and probably won't) but if you don't know what the expectations are then that makes it pretty tough...

I would have thought that the expectations would be spelled out at some point not just vaguely hinted at.

So why were they put out there in the first place?

People are essentially the same.

If NU is right and the idea is to live well, then surely the definition of living well shouldn't really be effected by where or when you live?

And if it is effected.. where are our updates?
Consider: pigs are not a good thing for nomadic folk to take around, so they're gone. Shellfish tend to cause illness, they're gone. Then there's a slew of cruelty-to-animals laws, so food has to be prepared properly. In that vein, there's something along the lines of it being cruel to bathe the freshly slaughtered lamb in its own mother's milk, so there's no mixing of meat and milk-products.

Judaism is a primarily civil religion, which is why three of the five books are devoted to rules. The rules are a good idea, but codified in a holy text to make sure everyone took them seriously. From personal experience, villagers tend to make up their own mind about when rules apply and when they don't; in Greece, the flu is immune to all drugs now, because people take drugs in excess only when they feel ill. They then stop immediately on feeling better, though one is supposed to continue for a while, to eradicate the remnants of the virus/bacteria/whatever it is.

So then back on topic, religion is incredibly good in the short-term for exerting control, and possibly for good reasons. But in the long-term, it entrenches too well. Ironic how the road to hell is paved with good intentions... There can be no updates, because no one who is seriously religious can admit to you that there was a civil reason for the laws, rather than an arbitrary command of God.

Man those crazy Deities.. they are so wacky...

G-d was vague for a number of reasons:
1: Human language is limited.
2: He intended to add in nuances and hidden meanings.
3: He gave us the Oral Law to explain things.
4: He wanted us to use those brains He gave us to figure things out. Why else did He entrust the further interpretation of the laws to mortals, rather than having prophets give us updates every century or so? (Biblical prophets tended to be more like "Stop worshipping idols, or G-d will smite you so hard...")

And people still argue about G-d's words because new situations come up where we must apply the laws to new situations. This is not confined to religion, either - courts do this every day.

I dispute that G-d gave us the laws of Kashrut for health reasons. If He had intended so, he would have given the laws to the Noachides as well.

I was just wondering why, if humans are logical beings, why deities don't just set out a clear set of guidelines.

Why do they always have to be so vague?

Because when making up imaginary beings in the sky with which to intimidate the unwashed masses, it is better to be vague than concise?

Gives you wiggle room when you want to change the rules again later.

I dispute that G-d gave us the laws of Kashrut for health reasons. If He had intended so, he would have given the laws to the Noachides as well.
So does Wikipedia to some extent, but note their comment:
In 1953, Dr. David I. Macht, a Johns Hopkins University researcher, performed experiments on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the concentration of zoological toxins of the "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. In addition, Dr. Macht's research indicated harmful physiological effects of mixtures of meat and milk, and ritually slaughtered meat appeared to be lower in toxins than meat from other sources The conclusions of the paper published in Johns Hopkins Bulletin of the History of Medicine was challenged in a paper by biologists written at the request of a Seventh-day Adventist Church publication.
further, it does not say that the explanation fell out of favour with Jews because of its content. So I would still say it is not accepted because it is easier to suppose God provided the rules to force people to practice self-restraint in a civilized world. The fact that plants are not included simply imply that the writers of the Bible had less of a grasp of botany than of farm animals.

<snip>

Fascinating. I'll have to think about that a bit. Could you provide a link to that article, so I may show it to the rabbis at school?

Fascinating. I'll have to think about that a bit. Could you provide a link to that article, so I may show it to the rabbis at school?
I think I also will take a closer look at this (I am relying on the Wikipedia interpretation).
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/Macht1953.pdf
If that does not work, search Kashrut in Wikipedia, it is ref. 3.

If you remember and have the time, message me what the rabbis think, I have not discussed this at shul in a very, very long time.

I'll probably post it here.

I was just wondering why, if humans are logical beings, why deities don't just set out a clear set of guidelines.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection:

"Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing"... (infinite mysteries of the supernatural, cosmic, and universal **dramatic music**)..."in order to distract its attention from another"...(needless fear and loathing of one's humanity [you're sinful and going to hell, existance is suffering, etc] is complete nonsense)

Basically, its the same reason why magicians don't explain their tricks, or why the wizard insists that you ignore the man behind the curtain.

Edit:


It's the clergy that has a vested interest in making them hard to understand so they can gain and maintain control over people.



Because when making up imaginary beings in the sky with which to intimidate the unwashed masses, it is better to be vague than concise?

Gives you wiggle room when you want to change the rules again later.


Exactly.

In most cases, of course, those moral teachings are pretty close in line with what other systems deem moral; most core moral truths are pretty universal.

Views on sexual morality differ immensely between religious conservatives and secular humanists, even though both embrace more or less conventional versions of morality.

Well, yeah. If a God comes out and says explicitly what is expected and gives unequivocal proof of their existence, then it sort of destroys the concept of free will that human nature is built on.

Why? No one ever proved that we had to obey God.

Mystery is a key to having power over others.

If Truth is simple and easily understood, then it is egalitarian. Everyone will have access to it; everyone will conceive themselves as capable of thinking for themselves. They will question their leaders, because they will see themselves as worthy beings. They will understand the doctrines, and thus their leaders cannot manipulate the doctrines to their advantage.

If Truth is complicated and mysterious, however, a specialist class can be created; people who can monopolize and control access to it. They will claim that extensive study and great talent is required for proper understanding, and, of course, such study and talent rests only with them - so the people must obey, lest they transgress. Actions that may seem absurd and arbitrary can be justified by appeal to the doctrines; people do not understand them, so they can hardly object. The Truth can be manipulated at will by the powerful to fleece the public and get it to accept its marginalization and low status.

(Of course, this is only relevant to organized religion. There is no hint of this at all in other areas of knowledge. Who could possibly imagine otherwise?)

Well, yeah. If a God comes out and says explicitly what is expected and gives unequivocal proof of their existence, then it sort of destroys the concept of free will that human nature is built on.

Bah! Decisions do not have to be based on ignorance.

I'm quite certain that President George W. Bush exists, and wants all United States voters to vote Republican in the upcoming election. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, actually has to do so. Now certainly proof of the existance and wishes of some God or other would be of greater significance than any ordinary politician, of what ever rank, but it still wouldn't require obedience.

Why do they always have to be so vague?Because once you pin them down, you can no longer avoid discrepancies by resorting to the vagueness.