And maybe more importantly, the parents used their own moral compass to decide what in the Bible was something they should teach while likely leaving out all that inconvenient shit about killing your children or selling them into sexual slavery.

What's history got to go with it though? A thing is what it is, not what it used to be.

@JeffMurray
A thing is what it is, not what it is popularly perceived to be. And an awareness of its origins can help us see more clearly what its real essence still is.

It’s true that if a thing changes over time into a completely different thing, then it is no longer the original thing. But if popular opinion of a biological necessity morphs into a belief that it is only a bad idea, it doesn’t make the biological necessity go away. An awareness of the historical trajectory of public opinion, as well as the scientific underpinnings of religion, work hand in hand to illuminate the significant role it plays in counterbalancing the evolutionary mismatch caused by the invention of agriculture.

What is popularly understood as religion today is in some ways nearly the diametric opposite of what it needs to be in order to continue fulfilling its biological purpose as counterbalance. The original (historical) purpose of religion isn’t obsolete. What’s obsolete is yesterday’s understanding of religion as applied to today’s need.

@skado I'm sorry, I read this several times and I can't figure out what you're saying here.

A thing is what it is, not what it is popularly perceived to be. And an awareness of its origins can help us see more clearly what its real essence still is.

I'll give you the first part. That's not much different than what I said, i.e. something is what it is and not something else.
But I disagree that knowing something's origins changes its 'real essence'. The thing still is what it is, as we seem to already agree.

But if popular opinion of a biological necessity morphs into a belief that it is only a bad idea, it doesn’t make the biological necessity go away.

True. If everyone thought it was bad to drink water it doesn't make water any less necessary for life. However, if the implication is that religion is a biological necessity, now (remember, if it morphed, it may no longer be necessary), I'm going to need to see some evidence of that.

An awareness of the historical trajectory of public opinion

Again, I don't see how what people thought of religion throughout time has any relevance on what religion is now.

scientific underpinnings of religion

I'll need you to explain what this means and the relevance of it to the discussion.

work hand in hand to illuminate the significant role it plays in counterbalancing the evolutionary mismatch caused by the invention of agriculture.

It being religion, I assume. So opinion + scientific underpinnings illuminate the role religion plays in balancing out a mismatch between what? Man and all other organisms? If I managed to get that right, how is that important, or at all a mitigating factor in how terrible religion has been and still is for mankind (and the planet at large it could be argued).

What is popularly understood as religion today is in some ways nearly the diametric opposite of what it needs to be in order to continue fulfilling its biological purpose as counterbalance.

I'm obviously way off base understanding your point. I'll need you to clarify.

The original (historical) purpose of religion isn’t obsolete.

How so?

@JeffMurray
All good questions. Other responsibilities are demanding my time right now, but I’ll try to do those questions justice later today or at my first opportunity within the next day or two. They require a good bit of background to get up to speed. Thanks.

@skado Thanks. Yeah, take your time. I just really wasn't following where you were going.

The basis for every Christian sect I have ever heard of is that every Christian believes that Christ is the son of God. How can you be an atheist and believe that?

@Lorajay
You could believe that “God” and “Christ” are metaphors.

@skado touche

@JeffMurray
I didn't say "knowing something's origins changes its 'real essence'." I'm saying popular perception may not reflect its real essence, and knowing its history may help us understand that real essence better than only knowing how it manifests today.
And I didn't speak about religion itself morphing (that's another subject) but about public opinion morphing. I called it a biological necessity for short-hand. A more precise description would be a cultural necessity, but even culture has a biological base.

So, culturally necessary for what purpose? To counterbalance "Evolutionary Mismatch" which, in brief, is the situation in which the environment changes faster than evolution can adjust.
[en.wikipedia.org]
In this case we did it ourselves, by inventing agriculture. Agriculture precipitated many radical changes in our environment and behavior that were at odds with our evolved nature. This kind of mismatch is one of the most common causes of extinction.

It appears to me (I'm no scientist, but I read a lot about this particular issue) that our evolved nature was not a seamless fit for city life, and behavioral modifications were necessary to balance that mismatch. It's not that no religion existed before the agricultural revolution - the balancing act had its beginnings long before that. But religion essentially became a very different phenomenon after civilization began.

If this observation is correct - if religious discipline does serve to dampen some of our animal instincts for the purpose of living among large numbers of strangers - then carelessly casting it aside wholesale without considering its historical bio/cultural implications, could be toying with the collapse of civilization, and even extinction.

And though the science appears far from settled on this specific matter, I'm not the first person to say similar things. Dan Dennett, of all people, has urged people to understand what they're destroying before they do it. He thinks, as I do, that religion has taken a cancerous turn. But he also understands that it has biological origins, and so shouldn't be disregarded as useless, before we fully understand its significance.

I don't have slam-dunk proof to offer, but the more I study it, the more religion looks like an essential ingredient in our capacity to sustain civilization. Whether civilization itself is the best path is another question. But whether it is or isn't may not be up to us. I think that genie is already out of the bottle.

Thanks for listening. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

@Lorajay I'm with you on this. There are a lot of loosy goosy definitions of things going around here and across the internet. Nothing I can really do about it, but I like my words to mean something and convey information. If 'Christian' can be used to define one who believes in some of the teachings of Christianity, even without the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, it seems like you can stretch that to include pretty much anything. Then, the only way you'd know if someone is a Christian is if they self-identify, and when people self-identify, you have no idea what that even means because there's no standard definition.

@skado Honestly, I don't see evolutionary mismatch, especially as it pertains to religion, to be of actual concern for humans. Mankind has been actively denying natural selection for decades and have been actively working on our own destruction in other ways for even longer. Seems silly to think a process that we are "over" is more dangerous to us than all of the other problems we've created for ourselves. Add to that the fact that humans have no control over what they believe (regardless of whether people believe they do or not) and you have a problem not worth worrying about because it's not under our control. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with that assessment, but that's my two cents.

Interesting comment! If someone did 50 things that required a good set of ethics and then robbed a bank, are they then an unethical person? Or would they be mostly-ethical? It is obviously easier to be proud of someone who has a perfect ethical score... but is that too high of a standard? If you have kids who are good 95% of the time, can you still be proud of them?

@Admin Ethical person that robs a bank is just a bank robber which is not an ethical act.

Children that are good 95% of the time are miracles. Regardless of the percentage blood is thicker than water and almost all children are basically good.

@TheMiddleWay
I think you're playing word games here and I think you know it. You're not a bank robber if you work for the bank testing security and don't steal anything (or intend to steal anything).

@Admin
Let's pretend her analogy was 'ethical serial rapist'. She probably didn't feel the need to go that dark, but it seems to solidify her point. I personally don't think there are any number of 'good deeds' one can do to mitigate that.

@Lorajay
Almost all children are just like almost all other types of people: basically bad. Have you seen how they behave to each other? And that's when they have to power, no needs they have to meet on their own, and generally no stressors. It is because of that, that I can completely agree that children who behave 95% of the time would be a reason to believe in miracles.

@TheMiddleWay
Wikipedia disagrees with you.

@TheMiddleWay Ethical hacking may be a thing, no one said it wasn't. But I think her point was that robbing banks is not ethical. And "ethical bank robbing" isn't robbing a bank any more than killing someone in virtual reality is murder. You're adding a word to it which necessarily changes what the thing is. If I add 'vegan' in front of 'cheeseburgers' we're no longer talking about the same thing we were before.

@TheMiddleWay So then he's not a bank robber he's an ethical-bank-robber. We are having major communication issues this evening. Look at what you said in your reply.

Yes, I am adding a word that necessarily changes the whole thing

and

Hence adding ethical in front of bank-robbing modifies bank robbing

Does it modify it, or does it necessarily change the whole thing? 'Cold' modifies soda, 'empty' completely changes it.

@TheMiddleWay
Nope. There must have been an update today because the reply button swirls now. @Admin aware of the quote box glitch?
Also, I missed the magazine thing. How does that all work? Do you have to submit something to be an article?
And is there a list that shows how to make all the text styles like bold and strike through?

How about it @FearlessFly @Fernapple? Can you figure this out for us?

@JeffMurray . . . until it was mentioned, I had been oblivious to the existence of the quote button
I haven't noticed anything odd about 'Reply'.
I have 'reported' "Report" not apparently working, and that I'm not getting expected alerts.

@FearlessFly Thank you for that info.

Any thoughts on calling someone a bank robber when their job is ethical-bank-robber?

@TheMiddleWay Those are not real bank robbers or real hackers.

@JeffMurray I would call them a 'pen tester'

@TheMiddleWay, @JeffMurray I Disagree that most children are bad or that most people are.
I think nvironment and socialization often creates so called bad actions in children. I had 2 children and I watched them navigate through their environment and the people they were exposed to. Yes I probably had an excuse for each of their bad actions but I still think that people are intrinsically good when given the opportunity.

@TheMiddleWay But the intent and actions aren't the same. The intent of a bank robber is to steal money, the intent of the ethical version is to test security to defend against theft. The actions of a bank robber are to remove money, most often at the threat of harm or death, and keep that money as a source of income. The actions of the ethical version probably involve some similar characteristics, but without the permanent removal of funds for personal gain.

@Lorajay
A lot of people disagree with me on that, so I'm not surprised. I believe all people (including children) are intrinsically bad. People are selfish and greedy, and need only the right motivation and opportunity to reveal it. The more advantageous the bad act is and/or the less risk involved, the more likely any given person will take advantage. The "less badness" of a person is judged (by me) by how great the advantages and low the risk has to be before it motivates a bad act.

@TheMiddleWay NO YOU DIDN'T!! I'm not disagreeing just to disagree. You just said:
.
.
.
.

the actions are the same, but the intent is different.

It's good to have rules and tools to help one be the best version of themselves. Good comment

Hopefully better than David Koresh

Well, if table manners wasn't a popular thing until HitXXX promoted it, those of us who think good table manners is common place, might have to... ugh... never mind. Ha!

@Admin I know you're just kidding, but to be fair, the article kinda stated the opposite of that.

The concepts of "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", and "take care of others outside your tribe (good Samaritan)", while obviously not exclusive to Christianity, were taught to me in a Christian context.

So even if table manners were common place, the Hitler youth that learned them in that context...

I was mostly joking, but kinda making a little bit of a point.

@Admin Oh, and is the quote box bug fix in the works?

Is it possible to admire any teaching of any religion that has a spiritual component? My guess that the cultures that were precursors to the "common sense" teachings of "Jesus" also used it in a spiritual capacity. You do make a good point

I said "proud Secular Christian"... not "proud Christian". Perhaps you mean that the extra baggage of Christianity outweighs the positive non-spiritual teachings?

@Admin
You don't believe in god or jesus?

Do they call him "Chris"?

@Admin Maybe.

@Admin As they do Kris Kringle?

How is being a Secular Christian different than following the teachings of the Dalai Lama or Tony Robbins? Do you need to believe in the spirituality of Jesus to agree with what his key secular teachings were?

Love the shirt. Should 45 prevail then I would, again and more forcefully, advance the idea that the remaining 3 years of AntiChrist rule has begun. Those Jews who follow Christianity will allow non-Jesus Jews to be shot in order to bring the prophecy into reality. Only the converts will be left.