Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This belief thing
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 61 of 162 (782789)
04-29-2016 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
04-26-2016 12:13 AM


Tangle writes:
But when you see all this first hand one after another in quick succession - all the bell ringing, incense burning, joss stick lighting, bowing, praying, fasting, food fetishes and dietary retrictions - you have to come to the conclusion that we just made it all up and people will believe just about anything at all if it's taught them young enough and the promises that the belief systems give them are attractive enough - and/or the penalties for disbelief unattractive enough.
Interesting observations. I had some similar observations when I visited the Holy Land a number of years ago. The Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims all seemed to copy one another. They all had excessively ornate houses of worship. They all had shrines with footprints in the rock where Jesus or Mary or Mohammed ascended to heaven. (The Jews tended to avoid these excesses, however.).
I didn't conclude that they "made it all up", but I did conclude that the forms of Christianity that were on display in Jerusalem had been badly distorted and compromised in comparison to biblical Christianity.
Tangle writes:
There's no consistency and there's no rhyme or reason to it. If there is a God he's having a laugh.
Or He is very sad at what some of His professed followers are doing.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 04-26-2016 12:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 04-29-2016 4:58 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 62 of 162 (782808)
04-29-2016 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
04-29-2016 12:38 AM


kb writes:
Interesting observations. I had some similar observations when I visited the Holy Land a number of years ago. The Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims all seemed to copy one another. They all had excessively ornate houses of worship. They all had shrines with footprints in the rock where Jesus or Mary or Mohammed ascended to heaven. (The Jews tended to avoid these excesses, however.).
I guess that because they all have the same root as Abrahamic religions.
Or He is very sad at what some of His professed followers are doing.
I think this is us anthropomorphising god - something that has always been done and is a probable source of some of the stuff we make up, like god's anger and love. If we were to go that route I'd add neglect, narcissism and, of course, poor communication skills to a very long list.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2016 12:38 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 63 of 162 (782971)
05-01-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
04-26-2016 12:13 AM


Does counterfeit money prove that real money does not exist ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 04-26-2016 12:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 05-01-2016 4:17 PM jaywill has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 64 of 162 (782972)
05-01-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by jaywill
05-01-2016 4:01 PM


Jaywill writes:
Does counterfeit money prove that real money does not exist ?
Both counterfeit and real are easily proven to exist.
My observation is that all these beliefs are counterfeit and nobody is able to demonstrate otherwise because their is no 'real' version to compare them to.
You need a better analogy
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2016 4:01 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 05-02-2016 6:27 PM Tangle has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 65 of 162 (783049)
05-02-2016 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tangle
05-01-2016 4:17 PM


quote:
Both counterfeit and real are easily proven to exist.
My observation is that all these beliefs are counterfeit and nobody is able to demonstrate otherwise because their is no 'real' version to compare them to.
You need a better analogy
People have to be able to demonstrate the falsity of some beliefs or else they would never be recognized as counterfeit.
You claim to notice they are not genuine. Others can as well.
And people know when one is living in reality.
They may not like it, but they can perceive that one is genuine, true.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 05-01-2016 4:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2016 2:38 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 69 by Tangle, posted 05-04-2016 5:03 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 66 of 162 (783074)
05-03-2016 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by jaywill
05-02-2016 6:27 PM


Jaywill writes:
They may not like it, but they can perceive that one is genuine, true.
Yes, it's always the one that they believe. Coincidence?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 05-02-2016 6:27 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 162 (783106)
05-03-2016 3:15 PM


Reliability of witness testimony
If this is going to get me suspended, may I have the option of deleting it instead?
Admin ruled in Message 52:
I've read ahead to your Message 51 and think your argument that claimed eyewitness accounts should be accepted as evidence would be a good discussion subtopic, but do not use any examples that are in any way connected to Christianity.
Intro:
I would like to try to demonstrate this principle but ruling out Christianity does make it difficult. The problem is that Christianity is the only religion that is based on an abundance of eyewitness accounts. The Bible gives the standard that two or three witnesses are required in order to establish a truth, such as an accusation of the commission of a crime. Islam has one witness, Mohammed himself, and he isn't witness to anything historical anyway, just to his meeting with the angel he calls Gabriel and what the angel dictated to him. Mormonism has one witness, Joseph Smith, to his meeting with the angel Moroni and his finding of the golden plates which recount the events of the Book of Mormon. Some claimed to be witnesses to the existence of the plates, but that's not the same thing as being a witness to the historical events themselves. There have been many similar claims in recent times, as the Seth Books, Urantia, A Course in Miracles, and other occult teachings were also claimed by a single individual to have been dictated to him or her by a spirit being. Otherwise, most religions are based on teachings rather than on witnesses to anything historical at all, teachings sometimes based on the personal experience of a particular revered guru, such as Buddha's teachings based on his experiences in meditation, and similar teachings of various Hindu gurus or avatars.
I think the witness testimony in all those cases except the Bible is disqualified because it's the testimony of only one witness. I personally believe that spirit beings probably did dictate the teachings in some of those cases, but I can't argue the case for witness testimony on the basis of only one witnss, AND BESIDES, they aren't witnesses to historical events, they are just people who experienced an encounter with a spirit being who imparted teachings they wrote down, which may best be known as "dpctrines of demons." There was a spate of "channeling" back in the 70s and 80s where a single "chosen" individual would pass on advice and "wisdom" from some demonic entity or other. Most of these incidents aren't exactly religions but they are matters of belief so I guess they belong on this thread.
How about some UFO abduction stories? Some of them have multiple witnesses: 100+ Alien Abduction Stories That Will Make You Believe | Thought Catalog
I believe all these stories in the sense that I believe these people experienced what they describe, but I think what they experienced was probably an engineered deception of some kind by spirit beings, i.e. demons, so that although they witnessed something that happened, exactly what that something was may not be what they thought it was. The UFO researcher Jacques Vallee came to the conclusion from his studies of claimed UFO phenomena that they were similar to experiences reported by people in earlier times with more primitive technology, of fairies and other spiritual phenomena, therefore he concluded they had the same source and are all an engineered deception of some sort. I attribute it all to demons myself, but he didn't, just to some kind of spiritual deception. He believed in the reality of the accounts though, as do I.
Probably the most trustworthy historical witness accounts we rely on are histories of normal events rather than supernatural events, which could be accounts of anything. Books written about historical events in the past have more reliability the more witnesses they are able to discover and quote, other written accounts for instance. Biographies make use of the testimony of the person's friends and family, and if they're all dead, of whatever written accounts may exist. While there are often gray areas that can't be resolved, nobody dismisses the witness testimony as false just because it's witness testimony.
But this thread is about belief in the supernatural. I have to conclude there are no witness accounts except the Bible's that are truly trustworthy, and that's because the Bible has so many witnesses whose testimonies agree, to the existence of God, to miracles, to the difference between the one true God and the demonic gods of other religions.
But I'm not supposed to talk about Christianity, so I'm trying to make this post about witness reports in a more general sense, but it does seem to require me to come back to Christianity as the standard of comparison.
If this is going to get me suspended, may I have the option of deleting it instead?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 05-04-2016 7:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 68 of 162 (783192)
05-04-2016 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-03-2016 3:15 PM


Re: Reliability of witness testimony
Faith writes:
If this is going to get me suspended, may I have the option of deleting it instead?
You're not getting suspended.
In discussions where you're involved Christianity is ruled out as an example of belief in this thread because you have some unconditional nonnegotiable ground rules. These are from your Message 46 and Message 51:
  1. The Bible contains the objective evidence of its truth.
  2. Christian conversion is REAL conversion.
  3. Biblical witnesses are truthful good witnesses.
  4. Whatever Biblical witnesses witnessed is evidence.
  5. The Bible is comprised of much evidence reported by trustworthy witnesses.
  6. Those rejecting this are prejudiced and are impugning the witnesses' character.
All this leads to your final unyielding conclusion, that for Christians belief is simply what is true. Then when this is challenged discussion breaks down followed by your exit shortly thereafter.
So if you want to discuss the nature of belief in this thread, you'll have to use non-Christian believers as examples.
Edited by Admin, : Wordsmithing.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 69 of 162 (783260)
05-04-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jaywill
05-02-2016 6:27 PM


jaywill writes:
People have to be able to demonstrate the falsity of some beliefs or else they would never be recognized as counterfeit.
You claim to notice they are not genuine. Others can as well.
And people know when one is living in reality.
They may not like it, but they can perceive that one is genuine, true.
I may have misunderstood you - are you saying that those that are, say, buddhists, recognise that their beliefs are not genuine and that Christianity is?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 05-02-2016 6:27 PM jaywill has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(2)
Message 70 of 162 (783276)
05-04-2016 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
04-26-2016 12:13 AM


Tangle writes:
This is just a topic to muse on and it's obviously not a unique thought that each civilisation has made up its own belief systems and in the absence of real understanding, created its own ways of dealing with life here being 'short and brutish'.
But when you see all this first hand one after another in quick succession - all the bell ringing, incense burning, joss stick lighting, bowing, praying, fasting, food fetishes and dietary retrictions - you have to come to the conclusion that we just made it all up and people will believe just about anything at all if it's taught them young enough and the promises that the belief systems give them are attractive enough - and/or the penalties for disbelief unattractive enough.
There's no consistency and there's no rhyme or reason to it. If there is a God he's having a laugh.
I disagree with the notion that there is no consistency. They are consistent in the belief that there is more to our lives than the idea that we are simply the result of the fortuitous , endless and mindless combinations of base elements and evolutionary processes. They all conclude that there is ultimate purpose and meaning to life. They all contend that there is ultimately a right code of conduct that we should adhere to.
I would agree that religions are man made but that does mean that within all of this there isn't an intelligence that reaches out to us with the idea that there really is meaning and purpose to our lives. That idea had to come form somewhere and as I have suggested in other conversations we have had I suggest that it is more logical to assume that this idea is more likely to come from an external intelligence than it is to come from a collection of mindless particles.
I agree that the conclusions about the nature of this intelligence and of how it should affect our lives vary considerably. In most cases it seem to be more about influencing the various images for the various gods in order to fulfil our own selfish desires. I'm a Christian and I see the same thing in my own religion where people have turned it into simply the idea that by professing the correct doctrine you get to live forever. ISIL has twisted Islam into a belief that it gives them the power of life and death over others.
However, as far as I am aware, all of the major religions have the common thread within in them that it isn't all about me. The golden rule can be found in all of them, which is another consistency.
I also think that people look at the world and ar life itself and come to the conclusion that there is a point to all of this. As Paul writes in one of his letters we are able to learn about the nature of this intelligence and for his call on our lives by studying the nature of our existence. As an atheist you have concluded that things work better when we live co-cooperatively and attributed it to natural evolutionary processes. I suggest that it is the ongoing revelation of this creative intelligence in our lives. I contend that is the far more likely conclusion.

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.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 04-26-2016 12:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2016 3:47 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 71 of 162 (783365)
05-05-2016 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by GDR
05-04-2016 6:54 PM


GDR writes:
disagree with the notion that there is no consistency [...] They all conclude that there is ultimate purpose and meaning to life. They all contend that there is ultimately a right code of conduct that we should adhere to.
This isn't of course correct.
There are multiple, incompatible belief systems alive in the world today. (And many more long gone.) Some, but not all of these systems involve gods - Christianity, Islam, Judeism, Hinduism etc. Others involve ancestor worship and millions think that the numbers 3,7& 8 have magic propertiess - though each one in different countries. Buddists reject the idea of deity entirely. The Chinese build skyscrapers in particular shapes and positions to ward off bad influences. And so on and so forth. Pretty much anything you can imagine about imaginary beliefs has been imagined and worshipped/honoured/practiced.
However, as far as I am aware, all of the major religions have the common thread within in them that it isn't all about me. The golden rule can be found in all of them, which is another consistency.
The notion of 'do as you would be done by' is NOT a religiously derived idea, it's common to humanity regardless of religion, belief system or none. It's a necessary part of human life without which we wouldn't exist. It was here long before our current set of imaginary beliefs, it was there in the caves when we were dancing around the fire. It has been appropriated by some religions because it's a necessary way of getting along. You may believe that that set of cooperative mechanisms was put directly into people (and ants, bees, pack animals etc etc) by a god, or by an evolutionary process set in place by a god, but you CAN'T move from that to say that our religions are derived from god. The evidence is entirely that we make them up.
I'm claiming that the diversity and incompatibility of humanity's belief systems clearly demonstrates that they have been invented by us, not revealed to us by a common god. So much is surely obvious?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 05-04-2016 6:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-05-2016 11:06 AM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 72 of 162 (783419)
05-05-2016 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tangle
05-05-2016 3:47 AM


Tangle writes:
This isn't of course correct.
There are multiple, incompatible belief systems alive in the world today. (And many more long gone.) Some, but not all of these systems involve gods - Christianity, Islam, Judeism, Hinduism etc. Others involve ancestor worship and millions think that the numbers 3,7& 8 have magic propertiess - though each one in different countries. Buddists reject the idea of deity entirely. The Chinese build skyscrapers in particular shapes and positions to ward off bad influences. And so on and so forth. Pretty much anything you can imagine about imaginary beliefs has been imagined and worshipped/honoured/practiced.
Yes, there is ambiguity, but my point was that all religions conclude that there is more to life than what is obvious. Buddhists believe in reincarnation etc. Atheism's point is that we live and die as individuals and that ultimately all life will end one way or another and that ultimately there is no over-arching purpose to our existence.
Tangle writes:
The notion of 'do as you would be done by' is NOT a religiously derived idea, it's common to humanity regardless of religion, belief system or none. It's a necessary part of human life without which we wouldn't exist. It was here long before our current set of imaginary beliefs, it was there in the caves when we were dancing around the fire. It has been appropriated by some religions because it's a necessary way of getting along. You may believe that that set of cooperative mechanisms was put directly into people (and ants, bees, pack animals etc etc) by a god, or by an evolutionary process set in place by a god, but you CAN'T move from that to say that our religions are derived from god. The evidence is entirely that we make them up.
I'm claiming that the diversity and incompatibility of humanity's belief systems clearly demonstrates that they have been invented by us, not revealed to us by a common god. So much is surely obvious?
But that is simply your belief. If, as I believe, we have been given the ability to choose between doing the selfish thing and the unselfish thing we have to do that with the idea that we make the unselfish choice knowing that there is probably no ultimate pay-off for doing so. If we had absolute knowledge about some form of deity then we could no longer freely make that choice.
There are many cases where following the golden rule does benefit the one who follows it but there are also many cases where there is no chance of benefit for either the individual or for others in his/her gene pool.

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.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2016 3:47 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 11:10 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2016 3:17 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 162 (783420)
05-05-2016 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
05-05-2016 11:06 AM


Buddhist reincarnation
The Buddhist view of reincarnation also is more than simple rebirth, rather it is an expression of what you did during this current life determining your starting point in a future life. There is the element of reward, punishment, education, improvement and renewal.
The mechanism may be different but the patterns similar.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-05-2016 11:06 AM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 74 of 162 (783481)
05-05-2016 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
05-05-2016 11:06 AM


GDR writes:
Yes, there is ambiguity, but my point was that all religions conclude that there is more to life than what is obvious. Buddhists believe in reincarnation etc. Atheism's point is that we live and die as individuals and that ultimately all life will end one way or another and that ultimately there is no over-arching purpose to our existence.
Ambiguity?? The beliefs are incompatible. Most of them claim that only their belief is true. We must at least agree that the vast majority of religions must be invented - presumably in your case all but one of them?
Whether there is an 'overaching purpose to life' is an entirely seperate issue. You can't get from there to religion, that needs a quite different argument.
But that is simply your belief.
It most certainly isn't. People were living in communities before the invention of your religion - are you doubting that?
If, as I believe, we have been given the ability to choose between doing the selfish thing and the unselfish thing we have to do that with the idea that we make the unselfish choice knowing that there is probably no ultimate pay-off for doing so.
We do both the selfish and the unselfish thing for lots of complicated reasons to do with our upbringing, emotional state, genes, time of month, hormone levels, sex, relationships, etc etc etc. To imagine that we do the selfless act for Jesus or Allah or whatever god is in vogue at the time is just plain daft.
Again, you can imagine that 'god did it' but even if he provided the emotional states necessary for us to behave ourselves by choice, it does not even begin to explain the predominance of contradictory religions. The evidence is that they are all made up - except, you would say, one.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 05-05-2016 11:06 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 05-06-2016 7:25 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 75 of 162 (783578)
05-06-2016 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Tangle
05-05-2016 3:17 PM


Tangle writes:
Ambiguity?? The beliefs are incompatible. Most of them claim that only their belief is true.
I suggest that most religions do have some beliefs in common, such as the golden rule. As I said earlier all major religions agree that there is more to our lives than what is obvious through normal observation whether it be a particular revelation about one deity or another or re-incarnation.
Tangle writes:
We must at least agree that the vast majority of religions must be invented - presumably in your case all but one of them?
Nearly all religions are an attempt to understand the nature of their deity or deities and how we should respond. I'm theistic and as part of that I believe that the still small voice of God reaches out to all mankind but not in a way that gives us certainty. I explained the reason for that ambiguity earlier.
I have no doubt that much of what I believe is probably wrong. (The problem is I don't know which part of what I believe that is. ) However, I take on faith and trust that God is good and wants humans to reflect His nature into the world by living the life described in my signature.
Tangle writes:
It most certainly isn't. People were living in communities before the invention of your religion - are you doubting that?
God has been around a lot longer that 2000 years. Whar's your point?
Tangle writes:
We do both the selfish and the unselfish thing for lots of complicated reasons to do with our upbringing, emotional state, genes, time of month, hormone levels, sex, relationships, etc etc etc. To imagine that we do the selfless act for Jesus or Allah or whatever god is in vogue at the time is just plain daft.
It isn't about doing things. It's about having hearts that allow us to love unselfishly. Many of us have hearts that have been damaged by abuse, lack of love and all the things you mention. However, it is about wanting to do the unselfish thing even though the temptation to do make the selfish choice often wins out. Hopefully over our lives we evolve in such a way that we make more unselfish choices than not.
Tangle writes:
Again, you can imagine that 'god did it' but even if he provided the emotional states necessary for us to behave ourselves by choice, it does not even begin to explain the predominance of contradictory religions. The evidence is that they are all made up - except, you would say, one.
IMHO all religions including my own are in one sense or another made up. For example when you read Paul it is clear that he is working at living and understanding what the resurrection of Jesus meant to the world, which we still do to this day. As I said, all theistic religions are an attempt to understand the nature of their deity and how we should respond. Sometimes we get it right and some times not so much.

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.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2016 3:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 3:54 AM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024