absolute nonsense invented to either control people or explain things like gout that they had no real scientific explanation for because they were little more than goat raping savages at the time... More modern "religions" don't even have that excuse...

read the Jefferson Bible, [uuhouston.org] He did exactly that.

They take up valuable shelf space and require dusting just like useful and interesting books.

They read like proto super hero and war comics

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 now dumb enough to take them literally.
-- John Dominic Crossan

Thomas Jefferson did just that with the New Testament. He took out all references to supernaturalism and just left Jesus'teachings. It's called the Jefferson Bible.

Bull is Bull. Will take more than the removal of certain words to make it valid.

if you take mysticism out of the bible you are left with a book of social rules and constraints. Nothing more.

My thoughts are that the "mystical" is there for intrigue, since it stands for that which we don't know, however also implying that there is hidden meaning or cryptic messages, and only the super spiritual people can understand their meanings. (Or the gullible, crazy and arrogant, wanting to control others or wanting to be controlled.)

If it is said that a "mystical being" wants you to behave a certain way, and you can't understand the origin of that "mystical being" then you either have to follow blindly or disregard.

If the origin of this "mystical being" was simply in the minds of ancient people, who didn't have access to the knowledge we have now, it's really hard to believe blindly what is written in those texts without setting your intellect aside.

Like watching a cartoon, which is obviously fictitious, we set our intellect aside to enjoy it. Same thing with the old time religion, in my opinion. Usually we can learn something from a fictitious story, but to be honest, there isn't much in the religious texts that actually improves one's life. Small nuggets here and there, but we have to throw out a lot of wastewater to find them.

Setting aside the magic and horrors attributed to the "mystical being" meant to have us feel both love and fear, the stories and writings in the monotheistic books seem to set an example for some historical tradition for the way people have behaved in the past, most of which seems extremely barbaric to the modern mind.

Holding the way people behaved in the past as "tradition" can be a way to bind people to accept the way things are and not change, hold on to the past by repeating it, rather than learning from it and going forward in a better way.

For example, if in the past, people were enslaved, and it is written down in a "sacred religious text" as being the accepted and correct way of life, thousands of years ago, then how do we move forward from that way of thinking? Not by holding up that religious text as sacred. We have to question, do we think differently now?

The religious texts can shape people's minds into following tradition instead of thinking about it, forging a path forward and evolving toward a better way of life.

To me, a religious text must make sense to the human mind in the here and now, be informative with our real human origins with vision toward a viable goal of happiness and harmony. I don't see that in the old religious texts.

I think the genesis story, with the miraculous making of man first, woman second, talking snakes, magic apples, etc., isn't meant to be believed as truth, but as metaphors for that which we don't know. Even so, is the story a healthy one? I don't think so.

So much more can be learned by reading about our real origins and transformations over time adapting and going forward, with all the good and the bad. If we are to be entertained by stories with some moral intent, they should be able to be understood in the here and now, not have to imagine ourselves in a small area of what we now call the middle east. Is that currently a happy place?

Each region of the world had its own origin stories, made up simply because people are curious and a story can help people understand their role in the world. Then missionaries came to take those stories away and convert the natives of that land to a story that was written in a different time and place. Not a good fit.

A person can learn more about how to behave by watching Mr. Rogers or Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, historical novels, Aesop's Fables, etc., than by reading the religious texts. Those are my thoughts.

So, biblically when you say "religion " you are talking about mythical characters in books, educational texts, and policy and procedure manuels for nursing homes and orphanages?

Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

Fiction is fiction. You can read any modern day fictional book and find references to actual events, places, and displays of morals and values. The plot, characters, the story itself is still fictional.

Depends. First of course, are you asking about religious books in general, as in your first sentence, or the Christian bible especially, as in your last three ? Because they may not all be the same by any means. The writings of Lao-tze , Mohamed, the Veda, possibly St Paul, the gospel writers, and the supposed writings of Moses and the Prophets, are all quite different both in content, and their possible levels of validity to none supernatural issues.

But to take the Bible, which seems to be your main interest. Certainly the Old Testament even if you take out all the supernatural elements, seems hardly likely to be very enlightening. Since without those, the greater part is mainly intended as political propaganda, and nationalist story telling, being therefore quite as likely to be unbiased and truthful as any other political propaganda. While the New, contains only a very little, very poor philosophy, and a lot of gossip hearsay, and speculative hack journalism, around a celebrity figure, and is therefore little likely to contain any more veracity, than fanzines and tabloid papers do today, about such people.

It is a thing often forgotten, that people and authors in the past, were exactly the same sorts of people and authors as those we have today. Because time and tradition are generally, quite wrongly, thought to give authority, and an aura of specialness to things we inherit from the deep past. Yet people in the Bronze and Iron ages were no more likely to be truthful and unbiased, or free from spin, the wish for grandiosity, political, social and class prejudices, than we are today. Perhaps less so, since they were less exposed to scrutiny.

Yet the great irony is that because of the assumption that age, and populism, give authority to writings, it is often likely therefore, to be the worst writings to come to the fore. Since the worst writings are by their natures, having been written, rewritten, and edited, over many generations, likely to contain the most contradictions, the most vague statements and the least clarity. Which means that they are the ones, most open to, and most in need of interpretation. In short they can easily say anything you want them to say. Yet quoting them still brings with it that aura of authority, which it is supposed they carry, so that quoting and valuing them confers fake authority on the user. Even though that authority is the fake authority, of the ad populum fallacy and the golden age fallacy, and capable of any interpretation you wish. And who would not want free authority for anything you wish to say ? (Well perhaps only honest people.) Is it any wonder that the Bible is the worlds most popular book ?

.

Had childhood friend who was brainwashed into a religion who would do that. She became impossible to have a normal conversation. Everything would be turned religious. We quickly became strangers after her born again conversion.