I was not going to respond to this thread since it would mean opening another discussion with the potential to be very long and intricate. But after watching the videos, I felt compelled because of all the misinformation and vague, weird content they presented. So here we go
|Greatest I am writes:|
IMO. All religions are manmade and all Godís are projections of manís desires for supremacy and to be the Alpha male of the human race. Survival of the fittest and our desire to be the fittest human is what drives us and keeps mankind progressing and evolving.
This is an interesting hypothesis and I look forward to you showing, with evidence, that this is indeed the case. However I can say(and will demonstrate) right off the bat that this is simply an alternative belief, made from misunderstanding scripture, misconstruing history, and once again, incorrect assumptions.
I will now address each link and respond to the content contained:
(I do not have time unfortunately to address Dan Dennett's video at this time, I hope you will not see this as me avoiding it . Hopefully I will be able to come back and address it at a later date! College calls! )
II. The Invention Of God & Religion
You posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA as evidence that all religions are made up. I watched the whole video. (As you prob. already know) this video is based on the work of Rudolf Steiner, author of The Philosophy of Freedom in 1894. The first thing we need to realize is that almost everything quoted in this video are part of a belief system, specifically, anthroposophy (a pseudo-science) and therefore are not necessarily backed up by much hard evidence. They are (not the Philosophy of Freedom as a whole, but the information in the video) mainly, only assertions, or truth claims, without any evidence whatsoever.
The entire video commits at least three or four different kinds of logical fallacies:
1) Ad hominem: the video bases at least the first half on "what religions/religious people are like" to say that religion is manmade/not supernatural. He cites two religious people as examples, picking at their character instead of attempting to rebut the actual claims of Christianity and scripture.
2) Begging the question/claim: The speaker already assumes he is correct without giving the viewer absolutely any evidence that it is so
3) It is a circular argument: the language used is the same language over and over again, reinstating itself but never offering any proof
4) Using the 10 Commandments (the movie, no less! lol) to draw a conclusion about reality is extremely fallacious and suspicious.
In conclusion, this video is built on so many logical fallacies that it's literally difficult to take it seriously at all. I know of Rudolf Steiner, his work is actually pretty interesting, but even Steiner himself was not fully convinced of the 100% accuracy of his ideas. In fact, in 1907, Steiner separated himself from the Theosophical Society Adyar (of which he was heavily involved in) because the Society was prepping a young man to become "the New World Teacher," and were claiming this boy was the reincarnated Jesus Christ, and Steiner totally disagreed!, causing a split in the Society. We find that Steinier was actually working toward developing a path that embraced Christianity at the time, and could not consent to the heresy. (check it, 4 paragraphs down for source)
III. The Father Complex
Luckily I am also a Psychology minor so this stuff is very interesting to me I read this whole article.
I am familiar with the idea of the father complex. However, this psychological phenomenon is more proof for there being a God than against. Think of it this way. We each have an innate desire/compulsion and real need to eat food. Food exists. Doesn't make sense that food would exist, given that we naturally crave it? The same goes for many things in life. Water. Sex. Belonging. Love. This is the same idea. The father complex (which we all have to some extent or another) is the innate desire to be fathered and all the ideas/assumptions/learned ideas about what that means. But at a base level, we all desire to be fathered. Does it not logically follow that this need is based on a reality? And, in fact, we find that it is. We all have a father. So what does this prove? It proves:
This innate desire for a father, and the subsequent projection of this need, is based on reality; we all have a father that exists/existed. Therefore, this seemingly innate desire to think about God, create Gods, worship God, know God personally, and create religions around God also is based on reality. That which fulfills this desire, the food to our hunger, is the real, actual, God, YHWH.
IV. Gnosis - The Secret of Solomon's Temple
this was the video in question. I also watched this whole video. The first thing I noticed is the title is extremely misleading. The speaker mentions at the beginning something about the secret of Solomon's temple, but then we hear absolutely nothing about Solomon's Temple again afterwards. Maybe this video is a portion of a longer one?
Moving on, I must say right off the bat, Gnosticism is not Christianity. It is a heresy that developed by the mixing of Eastern mysticism and mystery cults with Christianity during the first and second centuries, specifically. As an aside, I noticed you identify as a Gnostic? In that case, I need to say that I hold nothing against you personally and anything I write here is not a personal attack on you or your journey/life. If this were real life perhaps we might sit down over coffee and some apple fritters . It will, though, be a rebuttal of the misconceptions and assumptions of the ideas. AKA= offense is not the intention
I found this video extremely vague and misleading. The key here, friend, is EVIDENCE, where is the evidence? Once again, the speaker in the video provides us with a circular argument: he spends the entire time saying the same things without offering any real evidence for his assertions. Another huge red flag to me is the speaker quoting The Gospel of Thomas, a heretical book in the Apocrypha. If the claims of the speaker were so legit, why quote from a source that is inherently suspicious? Why not just quote from scripture or another historical figure? What this does for me is really hurt the credibility of his claims.
Now here, you you object to me classifying the Gospel of Thomas as heretical, and in that case you may not fully understand how the Bible was created. As I do not have time to go into that in this thread, here is an excellent source (the same one I quoted in your other thread) that goes very in-depth into how sources were gathered, the OT and NT were formed, and the Canon created: Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by Greenlee.
In conclusion, this video is nothing but wild claims without so much as a shred of actual evidence. Further, the speaker, again, never actually addresses the real claims of what he would call "mainstream" Christianity, and therefore a case really is not made. Cool ideas, but again, no evidence.
|The choice people have is to believe that religions are ultimately products of a supernatural God who dictates policy to humans, who then pen them into holy books, and we have many Gods who are of this ilk, or to recognize that all these Gods are products of manís imagination|
I'm afraid that the way you've classified Christianity is absolutely nothing like that. This again, seems to be based around incorrect assumptions on what Christianity actually is. On an absolute basic level, Christianity is the assertion that: God inserted Himself into human history without prompting/manipulation from anything outside of Himself. "Dictating policy" has absolutely nothing to do with the God found in scripture. Rather, we find that God is good, and humans are not. In Exodus, we find a place where God invites humanity into a personal relationship with himself. (Exodus 20) Incredible! That's what the 10 Commandments really are, friend! Basically, a marriage ceremony initiated by God. the 10 Commandments (actually the 10 "Words" in Hebrew) are not even commandments (I can demonstrate this with a Hebrew study if required), but rather promises of what life is like in relationship with God.
Christianity is unique in that it is essentially an anti-religion. The main idea/goal of "Religion" is somehow "getting to god/supernatural" by means of "doing something." Christianity says God did it.
|Proof for a supernatural God has yet to be shown other than humans who say they wrote what was dictated by a God. Some do not see that as proof.|
There is no such thing as "proof" for a supernatural God. And there doesn't need to be, because the supernatural cannot be proven. Of course. But. There is evidence for a supernatural God. The greatest evidence being the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I wish I could go more in detail here, but will answer any questions.
|I think the proof we have of Godís being manmade is that no real supernatural God has ever bothered to correct any of the contradicting information about him, her or it. No God has ever corrected us.|
Another assumption, friend. . Why assume that if there were a God, he would correct information about Himself? If Jesus was who he said he was, and actually rose from the dead, then we have to assume God has a good reason. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, who cares?
|Do you think Gods are manmade or do you believe in a supernatural God?|
I believe in a supernatural God. I believe this because of the overwhelming evidence for the legitimacy of the New Testament, because of the existing evidence for existence of Jesus Christ, I believe this because of the cogent, excellent evidence for His resurrection, and lastly because of my personal experience with knowing Him as a friend and father, and experiencing unexplainable occurrences in my own life. I am willing to go into detail on any of these topics, I am not afraid of a debate
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Message 9 of 511 (771352)
10-24-2015 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
10-24-2015 4:30 AM
And I laughed, almost out loud when I saw the claim that there was excellent evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Odd that I've never seen any, despite investigation. I'd say that the evidence, properly considered is against it. Care to produce your evidence?
There isn't conclusive evidence so ultimately it is a matter of belief.
However, the Gospels exist. We know approximately when they were written and as Luke says in his opening that they were compilations drawn from other earlier sources.
It is very clear from the accounts written by Paul and other NT authors that they believed strongly that the resurrection was an actual historical event. The question is Ė did they get it right or wrong.
The Gospel accounts have a strong ring of truth in that they show the first Jesus followers in a negative light, they have women, (women were considered to be unreliable witnesses in that culture), as the first to experience the risen Christ, the accounts differ in small ways which makes collusion seem very unlikely, there is no written contradiction to the accounts and Paul who had been a strong adversary became convinced of the resurrection giving up a life of prestige and position for a life of living on handouts, a life always at risk and a life of discomfort in general.
There was no one who at the time was able to produce a body which would have put a quick end to the whole idea of resurrection.
There were many people at the time the Gospels were written who would have been able to dispel the Gospel accounts as well as the Epistles as written by Paul
There were numerous other messianic movements during that period and inevitably the leaders, and usually their followers, were put to death. In every other case when the would be messiahs were put to death their movement simply died out. Their followers simply went looking for another messiah. Many of these messianic leaders had actually been able to lead their followers into battle against the Romans with some success whereas Jesus simply led a small group of rag-tag followers preaching a message of peace that ticked off just about everybody. Without the resurrection Jesus would have been about the least likely to inspire an on-going movement.
The Gospels accounts tell of Jesus' followers doing what essentially amounted to a disappearing act at the time of the crucifixion. They didn't want to suffer the same fate as Jesus. They would have seen what had happened to others in their situation although in this case the risk would have been less as they hadn't mounted up a military threat to the Romans.
However something happened that changed all of that, They say that what had changed for them was that the Jesus that had been crucified had been resurrected as we see in the Gospel accounts.
That is evidence! Is it conclusive? No. Can it be repeated? No, but that is true of any historical account.
In the end, we all make up our mind as to whether we believe the accounts are essentially accurate or not, (but not necessarily inerrant in the details), and then decide how that impacts our life if at all.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 4 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2015 4:30 AM|| ||PaulK has responded|