Question for our Christian visitors
Offline Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
- Login to post comments
Offline Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
I'm not upset. In fact I don't give a .....
- Login to post comments
Offline The Islamic position on Jesus follows much more closely to the first and even second century CE position on Jesus -- great teacher, not a Jewish-type prophet (I can explain if anyone cares), definitely not divine.
It wasn't until the Council of Nicea that Jesus was firmly placed into some co-divine relationship with the Abrahamic god (and I don't use "G-d" here because G-d has no parts, no partners, no alternate personalities, etc).
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline "Ah, but why gods? There is a simple explanation, but why not just make up a superman character instead?"
Because gods suggest an answer to questions we have no answer for. Supermen just make good stories (sometimes). They don't suggest an answer.
"Lot's of words. You claim the only support for gods from followers is belief. yet if you have nothing to base belief on, you have nothing to believe in, so in fact, belief has nothing even to do with why we believe, only that we accept what we believe."
Theists do have basis for belief. Indoctrination coupled with a lack of education. That doesn't give any validity to their beliefs. Quite the opposite.
Being "so" bad at "listening" isn't an argument. Where was the voice of god when I was a child? I looked and listened for it constantly, in an ever futile attempt to understand the beliefs of many of my peers.
Your god, NO god, ever came to me, despite a desperate search by an innocent child to find one. Or even something like one. But nothing was there.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Theists do have basis for belief. Indoctrination coupled with a lack of education. That doesn't give any validity to their beliefs. Quite the opposite.
A lack of education about =what=?
I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis.
If I were looking for the impact of education on ones belief in G-d, I'd look there. You might also consider the advances that were made by my cousins the Arabs while the pink skinned European world was living in straw huts and dying from disease.
Maybe "lack of education" is a "Three-In-One Deity Special!" problem and not so much a problem with pure monotheists.
Just saying.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis.
None of them were awarded a Nobel Prize for providing any evidence for a supernatural.
Just saying.
That's a strawman. He never said that theists couldn't get an education, or be intelligent.
Children are indoctrinated in churches. Churches do not teach science from a holy book. They teach misinformation about science at best, because science gives evidence that everything we see can have a myriad of possible natural 'causes'.
The entire argument for the 'supernatural' is ad hoc and argument from ignorance.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
Offline cap,
the commonalities in various belief systems are easily to be expected because we share common brain structures, common basic psychology, and ideas get passed on between cultures, even way back. There is DNA evidence of contact in very ancient times between geographically separated cultures.
We all experience/observe the same Sun, Moon and stars, the same categories of flora and fauna.
All cultures that became in any way advanced had agriculture, experienced the seasons, the cycles of growth, all of which contributed to the narrative myths of the culture.
In the Middle East and Central Asia region, the common threads seem to have been passed from culture to culture. The Sumerians lasted 1000's of years, and seem to have had many of the memes that we think of as distinctive to Christianity, are about the earliest we can identify as a distinct culture.
There is no mystery here.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline "A lack of education about =what=?"
The sciences.
"I mean, you realize that Jews, who are almost all "theists" in some sense or other, have receive more Nobel prizes in the sciences than any other recognizable group on a per-capita basis."
You do realise that not only do LOTS of jews not identify with theism AT ALL, but that the jews are significantly outnumbered by competitors? And that an exception to a standard doesn't disprove the standard is a standard?
Oh, and how many of those nobel winners were orthodox jews, by the way?
You want to defeat my argument, then prove that most theists are scientifically literate. Don't play semantics and bother with exceptions to the rule unless the exceptions are the rule. Good luck.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline About 20% of Israeli Jews are NOT religious, which is a higher percentage of 'non-religious' than many Western countries.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline secularization. need I say more?
- Login to post comments
Offline Mod edit: Spam.
- Login to post comments
Offline cap,
the commonalities in various belief systems are easily to be expected because we share common brain structures, common basic psychology, and ideas get passed on between cultures, even way back. There is DNA evidence of contact in very ancient times between geographically separated cultures.
We all experience/observe the same Sun, Moon and stars, the same categories of flora and fauna.
All cultures that became in any way advanced had agriculture, experienced the seasons, the cycles of growth, all of which contributed to the narrative myths of the culture.
In the Middle East and Central Asia region, the common threads seem to have been passed from culture to culture. The Sumerians lasted 1000's of years, and seem to have had many of the memes that we think of as distinctive to Christianity, are about the earliest we can identify as a distinct culture.
There is no mystery here.
I'm glad you can see that. Biblically speaking, we'd have all come from a common ancestor... scientifically speaking... this has been supported... now the common ancestor science says could have been more of a small community, but none the less, the Bible and science agree on common ancestry and geographical location of origin... namely north Eastern Africa. Therefore, it is understood by Christians that the belief was carried over from group to group through common ground and when they split into different migration patterns, they took their own version of the stories with them. " The Next Christiandom" goes through the history of religions for a bit and shows how most major religions of the world can be traced back to a Jewish or Christian background using this methodology. \
So back to the point, either way you look at it, I guess it can be explained as far as how we'd have common stories... so what made these particular focuses so much more convincing than the rest? So much so that most people groups around the world have at least a history of that understanding if not still adhere to it.
- Login to post comments
Right, about half doesn't, but the largest following generally speaking is of the Abrahamic God. The rest of the 50% covers following of 1000's of different gods including the non-believing community that follows no god.
The educated people from different followings would agree that Allah is the same God, but the break down is the following. The Muslims claim that though Jesus was a great prophet (suggesting they are agreeing that the God of Jesus is the same God they follow) he was not the son of God.
yet subjective belief here seems to be quite universal. Doesn't follow the rules of subjectivity. Subjective rules suggest that the belief systems would sever any type of connection to another belief system in fear that both belief systems would get confused with each other. The contrary is true.
I've heard that excuse many times, but I have yet to hear a rational POV for that perspective. Only that it doesn't make sense in their mind, therefore the others must not be thinking rationally.
You do remember I expressed interest in your podcasts and have listened to them... are you sure you want to stick with that perspective?
Many highly acclaimed brains out there have made the claim that they have "found the truth" by the particular studies they have done.... but of course it depends on what those studies were and not all those claims may be founded logically.
I would love to discuss those false assumptions I supposedly have about the nature of science and the ignorance of the current state of our knowledge in many fields... we'll cover them one at a time. That way we can be sure that I have the proper understanding of each before moving on.
uh... you're telling me then you have dissected the process of confirming miracles of God and have a thoroughly written thesis on your findings? I would love to read it. beyond that, I haven't presented evidences, only dissected irrational expectations from others on what evidences should be expected... as far as you and I go, we have clarified where each of us stand as far as expected evidences and why certain expectations were in fact irrational and others logical. This is why I took the confirmed miracle approach.
If there's another avenue you want to pursue as far as evidence, just name it.
I have given that summary many times. I'll share some of it again.
You seem to want to avoid evidence, so I'll avoid listing the avenues of studies that helped me come to the conclusion that I have. I will mention that I have experienced personal miracles and answers to prayer, have had conversations with this God, had situations in my life that are too ironic to be ironic and have seen God come through for us time and time again in difficult times. I have observed group settings where this God was legitimately present and understood to be and in similar situations observed groups where this God was not present and have seen the drastic difference in group dynamics. Again situations that might likely be too ironic to be ironic... as far as why the Christian God and not others, that goes into studies of religions and history of churches. that I guess would be a bit more evidence based rather than experience based.
Is that kind of what you were looking for? If not, you've got to be a little more specific then.
be it that evil without a basis or a source for understanding is subjective, sure, this God could be evil by perspective, depends on what end of the stick you're on.
This goes back to being allowed free will and to what magnitude freedom of choice would have to be taken from everyone to get rid of all alleged evil from every perspective. The bigger question in this case would be would there really be any freedom left? Likely not. Instead we'd be mindless drones who are puppeted by... a legitimately evil God, evil for not letting us make our own choices and making us be and do what He wants and not what we want. Thus even with all freedom taken away, evil still prevails subjectively. Ah, but we can't even think for ourselves, so regardless of how evil we would want to think he is for not allowing us to be anything more than puppets, he would only allow us to think of Him as the most upright and praiseworthy God ever.
I would love to hear what kind of evidence you'd provide to get rid of all evil as subjective as it is in the world today. e.g. radical Muslims don't see 9/11 as evil, but as the riteous hand of God. Americans find that as one of the most evil days in history. Do you really believe your understanding of evil and the source of it is not subjective in your statement above?
To answer your question, i believe God is good... but is that subjective or rational? How would you like to approach this matter?
but the interaction is still necessary. The particle experiment seemed to suggest that it was dependent on a conscious observer. Do they contradict each other?
cooperative hierarchy really. Three parts suggests they share the same being, but are separate persons, kind of like one person being possessed by several demons at once.
could be, but then why such unified imaginations of the spiritual world? What justification is there if in fact it does not exist? This is found to include disconnected or isolated people groups not tainted by western civilization. (Perspectives, a Christian world view)
It's funny how most resort back to God needing to exist only to be an explanation for something, as if that would be the only reason why a metaphysical god would exist. Why does something or someone have to exist to explain something, can't something just be?
It seems that many non-believing groups claim believers in God accept the reality of God only to centralize the purpose of human existence to themselves, yet the perspective that things only exist to give humans explanation of their surroundings suggests the same centralized purpose. Do you really believe everything exists to explain to us our surroundings? Are we really that significant in this universe?
Per what you said, You seem to be falling into the very reasoning you oppose. Otherwise, it's poor justification to say that "God is no longer useful as an explanation for anything."