| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2007 02:12:18 PM · #576 |
| After careful consideration of all factors, I've reached the inescapable conclusion that Legalbeagle is WAY more diplomatic than I am. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:13:40 PM · #577 |
| I've got to get me one of those Emotes of the smiley eating popcorn |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:14:04 PM · #578 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Correction - the INTERPRETATION of the nature of God may have changed, but the true nature of God has not.
|
Scientists' INTERPRETATION of the universe may have changed, but the essential nature of the universe has not (for all of you who may have thought that the Sun actually did orbit the Earth until Copernicus "proved" otherwise).
Originally posted by RonB:
... Just as contemptible as the condemnation to death of many by the presumably atheistic scientists at Dachau. |
Puh-leeze!
Originally posted by RonB:
Religious extremists do not hold a patent on contemptible acts. |
On this we agree. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:19:32 PM · #579 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
After careful consideration of all factors, I've reached the inescapable conclusion that Legalbeagle is WAY more diplomatic than I am. ;-) |
But I am slower and more verbose, too...
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:23:56 PM · #580 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Is it fair to say that religions cannot all be right (they are generally mutually exclusive)? |
Originally posted by RonB:
No, since none can be proven true ( or false ) at this time. |
Huh? Name one religion that doesn't imply that some other religion is wrong. Even if you're talking about different interpretations of the same God, that would exclude Roman or Egyptian gods (for example). |
Use some logic, Shannon. The question was not about whether religions IMPLIED that other religions were wrong. It was about whether it was fair to say ( objectively ) they WERE right or wrong. Since the end-of-days has not passed, we ( including you ) cannot "know" which, if any, was or were "right".
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Instead, given the fact that choice of religion is largely inherited, rather than independently determined, isn't it right, or at least likely, that you are more influenced by the teachings that you have received and been encouraged in, over external influences? |
Originally posted by RonB:
Not for me. My ultimate belief in the Christian faith came about empirically, through divine revelation, as it does for most born-again Christians. |
Again, Huh? If your parents had lived in some remote Amazon tribe, downtown Tehran or 200 years before Jesus, how would you have independently arrived at the conclusion that Christianity was the right choice? This is a similar to the jaw-dropping revelation suggested earlier that Christianity isn't based on the bible and church teachings. :-O |
You can play what-if all day long. I cannot answer how it would have occurred because it presupposes things that could not have happened. If my parents had lived in the Amazon, I might not have even been born.
You are right, though. Christianity is NOT based on the bible and church teachings. It is based on Christ, and Him crucified. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:35:52 PM · #581 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The question was not about whether religions IMPLIED that other religions were wrong. It was about whether it was fair to say ( objectively ) they WERE right or wrong. |
No, the question was whether they can ALL be right. Since every religion denies the viability of others and their foundations are often widely divergent (Christian God vs. Greek gods vs. Egyptian gods...), this can be answered without knowing WHICH is right.
Originally posted by RonB:
Christianity is NOT based on the bible and church teachings. It is based on Christ, and Him crucified. |
Your turn to use some logic! Without the bible and church to tell you that he ever existed, how could you possibly profess belief in Christ?
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 14:38:02. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 03:24:17 PM · #582 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Your turn to use some logic! Without the bible and church to tell you that he ever existed, how could you possibly profess belief in Christ? |
Christianity had been around for quite a while before there was the Bible as we know it, albeit the Old Testament (which has nothing to do with Christ) was around at an earlier date. The Christian faith was based on an oral tradition for a long time, and there were also the Gospels (but not yet the Bible).
But really, you're dealing with semantics here; Christianity is "based" on the life of Christ, His crucifixion, and His resurrection. The Bible bears witness to these things, but the religion is not "based" on the Bible.
You can understand the distinction, I hope; it is an important one. To say Christianity is "based on the Bible" implies worship of the Bible itself, and this is wrong. The distinction is important because other religions sometimes DO have primary texts upon which they are "based"; but Christianity is not one.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 03:24:50 PM · #583 |
| actually you will find reference to Jesus Christ in history not alone in the bible or just christian churches and teachings. Even Islam recognizes the existence of him as a prophet. What does this prove nothing except it is widely held that he existed. The belief would be in that fact that he is the sun of god. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 03:51:30 PM · #584 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I was using legitimate in a slightly different fashion to you: without knowing which religion is right, we cannot confer greater legitimacy on one religion over another (except through personal belief). |
WE cannot, it is true. My point was that the fact of our declaration of legitimacy is meaningless in the logical sense, just as our declaration of the colour of an object is subjective - the object's colour is what it is.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Say, you were given a box with a marble in it, and a list of 50 colours and asked to mark against each colour "present" or "not present" in the marble. There would be a good chance that you would not guess the colour(s), if any, in the marble correctly. The fact that you believe that all marbles are green in a world where people believe in various colours (or combinations thereof), does not improve your odds. Would you agree, or would the implications of agreeing with a analogy be difficult too? |
My response would be that, if I believe that I have a bias ( either mental or physical ), that all marbles are green, then I must assume that every one else, likewise, has their own bias ( either mental or physical ), that all marbles have multiple colours. Under that premise my chances of being "right" are actually better than theirs, since my choice of colours is limited to one ( I either mark off green or no colour at all ), while they must choose ALL of the observed colours among 50 possibilities. Ergo, my chance of being 100% correct are 1 out of 50, while for them the same odds exist for the first color, but then the odds must be compounded second color, and the third, and the fourth, etc. So if they observe just four colours, their odds of getting them 100% correct is 1 out of 200.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I acknowledge that it is difficult for an adherent to acknowledge that there is a possibility that they are wrong. However, would doing so really challenge your beliefs? |
No, but to acknowledging something that I do not believe would be lying ( regardless of the "facts" ). I can state that I do not believe in gravity, but that won't enable me to levitate, because SAYING that I don't believe in gravity would be a lie. And while I could lie about it, I could not NOT believe in gravity.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Given the undeniable presence of alternatives, I find it hard to believe that you could deny that there is a risk that the equally impassioned Hindu/Muslim/Jew/Scientologist "might" just be right - or at least acknowledge that there *is* the rational/mathematical risk, even if you choose to deny it. |
My response was to your original question, which used the term "significant" risk, not just risk. I will admit that there is *a* risk, just not a *significant* risk.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
My ultimate belief in the Christian faith came about empirically, through divine revelation, as it does for most born-again Christians. |
This is very interesting. Do you acknowledge that you are in a minority in a community largely focussed around the passing on of religious belief by parents, however, and that your choice of religious belief reflects the society around you? |
In the US, as in the rest of the world, most people are introduced to and taught the religion of their parents. Many, however, abandon the religion of their parents. Many evangelicals I know are considered by their parents as being "caught up in a cult". And I have a number of Jewish friends who believe that Jesus is the Christ, contrary to their upbringing.
As for the last statement, you have got to be kidding :-). I live in the U.S. where only 76 percent of Protestants and 64 percent of Catholics ( the two largest "Christian" denominations in the U.S. ) even admit to the existence of God, let alone in the rest of Christian doctrine ( heaven, hell, angels, demons, etc. )
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
If you were born in India, is there a possibility that you would be a born again Hindu? |
No. Since I couldn't have been born in India.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Not for me. I believe with my whole being, not just my "gut". I would never consider debating something that I disagreed with only at a "gut" level. |
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes again: I refer to "gut" in opposition to "rationally". Perhaps "heart" would be a less antipathetic term to use. |
Same answer. I believe in God with my "heart and soul and mind and strength". Note especially the part about the "mind". I have examined the claims of Scripture, of God, and of Christ extensively, and find no cause for doubt. Certainly there are mysteries, but mystery does not mean unknowable, just unknown. How a gecko walked on glass was a mystery, but now it is known. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 04:02:19 PM · #585 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
The question was not about whether religions IMPLIED that other religions were wrong. It was about whether it was fair to say ( objectively ) they WERE right or wrong. |
No, the question was whether they can ALL be right. Since every religion denies the viability of others and their foundations are often widely divergent (Christian God vs. Greek gods vs. Egyptian gods...), this can be answered without knowing WHICH is right. |
Ahh. I see where you are coming from.
Is is possible that all apples are red.
Perhaps it's the fault of the ambiguousness of the word "ALL". So, let's use EACH meaning individual and EVERY meaning, well, ALL as a group.
On that basis, logically, EACH religion *may* be right ( though we do not *know* which is/are right about each doctrinal issue ), but EVERY religion cannot be right ( about all doctrinal issues ).
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 04:11:58 PM · #586 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To say Christianity is "based on the Bible" implies worship of the Bible itself, and this is wrong. |
Fair enough, and that was not my intent. I was simply pointing out that without the Bible and related texts written by humans, there would be nothing to place the "Christ" in "Christianity." You can argue the existence of stories before there were such texts, but the nature of spoken stories is that there is no hard evidence left behind and that they tend to get embellished over time.
Ultimately, what Christians take to be the word of God is the text of the Bible. If there were any other innate knowledge of Christ, then you might expect to find the same religion in other parts of the world before conquering "messengers" arrived to spread the news (and kill off opposing views). |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 05:00:17 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ultimately, what Christians take to be the word of God is the text of the Bible. If there were any other innate knowledge of Christ, then you might expect to find the same religion in other parts of the world before conquering "messengers" arrived to spread the news (and kill off opposing views). |
Not all "messengers" are "conquering" and killing off opposing views. Most missionaries are peaceful and concerned for the welfare of those to whom they bring the message. The first rule in missionary work is to establish a basis of trust, before embarking on a program to deliver the gospel. In fact, just the opposite of what you charge is true - more often than not, it is the messengers who are killed. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 05:54:22 PM · #588 |
I cannot resist posting this. I have to drop in with this thought and leave.
I am very impressed with this site, which encompasses the wonderful art of photography in very many aspects. That this site also has the capacity as an outlet for this type of conversing deserves kudos.
I have only read through some of the post which I have noticed a lot of controversy. This is not a problem with meâ¦it is good to be free to share our beliefs and opinions. Some have the talent to eloquently convey their understanding of a fundamental belief system and I am truly impressed with their knowledge.
I am sorry if I might sound redundant, for I have not read through the entire thread that has lasted 8 days so far. But these are a few of the points I have a reply to.
For those that think this is not the place to discuss this issue, I disagree. In my belief system and the free society I am fortunate to live in, I think this is wonderful to be able to share a universal issue. I liken this thread to The Parable of the Sowerâ Mark 4
Something to consider;
For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18;20
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:14
à Some believe that the www is the universal highway of obtaining knowledge which applies to the above scriptures.
God has given us free will to learn and discern, a cognitive ability to reason and most importantly to have a conscience. This sets up apart from the animal kingdom.
A few interesting scriptures that convey the importance of knowledge so we can then discern and have understanding to lead us to our faith be it inherited, newly found or born again.
A divine design has the intelligence to impart it upon us.
v He who gains intelligence is his own best friend; he who keeps understanding will be successful. Proverbs 19;8
v The man who pleads his case first seems to be in the right; then his opponent comes and puts him to the test. Proverbs 18; 17
v The eyes of the lord safeguard knowledge; but he defeats the projects of the faithless. Proverbs 22;12
v An iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens his fellow man. Proverbs 27;17
v Hear, my son, and be wise, and guide your heart in the right way. Proverbs 23:19
v The mind of the intelligent gains knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. Proverbs 18;15
v How much better to acquire wisdom than gold! To acquire understanding is more desirable than silver. Proverbs 16;16
à The Discourse of Wisdom PROVERBS 8
à Wisdom: the Supreme Guide of Men PROVERBS 4
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 06:35:25 PM · #589 |
Modern Testament; The Book of Fast Food; French Frys 1:8, "...and the lord shown a bright star for three wise men to search for the perfect french fry. A clown, a king, and a bobble head man headed twords the star in search of the perfect french fry."
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 07:47:10 PM · #590 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the last statement, you have got to be kidding :-). I live in the U.S. where only 76 percent of Protestants and 64 percent of Catholics ( the two largest "Christian" denominations in the U.S. ) even admit to the existence of God, let alone in the rest of Christian doctrine ( heaven, hell, angels, demons, etc. ) |
This informal survey from a web portal site suggests the numbers may be somewhat larger, and the more formal study which inspired it (see link) seems to support that -- that fully 81% of Americans (including 57% of those who classify themselves as "non-religious"!) believe in angels, if not in God.
Survey for Sun, Jan 7, 2007
Calling on Angels
According to a recent AP-AOL News poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in angels, regardless of their particular background or religious beliefs.(AP) Do you believe in angels?
76% - Yes
14% - No
10% - I'm not sure |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 08:26:26 PM · #591 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
that fully 81% of Americans (including 57% of those who classify themselves as "non-religious"!) believe in angels, if not in God. |
Well now we're getting into the realm of mediums, tarot cards and aura reading... |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:36:28 PM · #592 |
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.
Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality?
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:34:10 PM · #593 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.
Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality? |
I am an atheist, I am aware that I am an atheist and that I exist, and I have no dilemma about that. :) |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:39:24 PM · #594 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.
Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality? |
I am an atheist, I am aware that I am an atheist and that I exist, and I have no dilemma about that. :) |
What are you saying? |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 11:59:09 PM · #595 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.
Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality? |
Yes. Many animals are probably aware that they exist, which allows monkeys to admire themselves in a mirror and makes "self-preservation" worth fighting for. Is it so difficult to imagine that an animal that can sense and recognize individuals among a group might also be able to sense and recognize itself? Surely if an animal can mourn the loss of a baby or partner, it can understand what it means to be alive. I don't profess to understand the mechanics of perception, but then I don't understand the how the brain processes sound or other sensory information either. That doesn't mean I'm going to attribute it to magic. I can't rationally explain why ribbon winners get votes below 3, but I'm pretty sure the explanation isn't supernatural. Just because something is unknown, that doesn't mean it's unknowable. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 12:24:27 AM · #596 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.
Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality? |
I am an atheist, I am aware that I am an atheist and that I exist, and I have no dilemma about that. :) |
What are you saying? |
I'm being a smart-ass. But to directly answer you, in a nutshell, no, for me, it is not a dilemma that I am sentient and self-aware, and that there is no god. (Or whatever you feel is needed.) It is not even a dilemma, for me, that there are no answers. Yet. What scalvert said. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 04:54:45 AM · #597 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.
Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality? |
If you accept that humans have the most sophisticated minds of all species on the planet, then should it come as any surprise that we are able to think in some ways that other animals cannot?
A possible (and in my view the likely) rational explanation is that any life form for which evolutionary pressure results in a relatively powerful mind and memory similar to ours will not fail to be aware of its own existence, even its mortality and make conjectures about its origins.
I will give you an example of (my simplistic understanding) of how some minds work as a precursor to giving an example of the evolutionary pressure that gives rise to our mind working the way it does. Autistic children tend to be unable to reas other people's minds, or appreciate different perceptions. The classic test is to take a sweet packet and show the child (4-5 years old) in private that you have filled it with pencils. Have a parent walk into the room, then ask the child what the parent thinks is in the tube. Autistic children will say "pencils" - they assume that other people have the same knowledge as they do.
It is not hard to imagine that a society filled with people whose minds worked in the way of autistic children would have much greater difficulty in being fully self aware (not being able to distinguish awareness, one person from another).
The ability to take into consideration other people's minds is theorised as being a strong evolutionary pressure: effectively, being able to read others' minds enables you to be more politically effective, which is very powerful evolutionary pressure in a social species.
Incidentally, forms of apparent self-awareness (manifesting itself in group politics) are observed in the animal kingdom, although at different levels depending on the degree of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:47:30 AM · #598 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
that fully 81% of Americans (including 57% of those who classify themselves as "non-religious"!) believe in angels, if not in God. |
Well now we're getting into the realm of mediums, tarot cards and aura reading... |
Does it matter? If one "believes" that they are accurate, is it any different from religion? It may even be preferable: the tarot card reader does it in front of you, and you do not have to rely on passed down accounts from thousands of years ago. On your argument, the fact that we have rational explanations as to why these tricks work should be irrelevant in the face of the multitude who "believe".
You have argued repeatedly that absence of scientific explanation gives credence to a belief system. A medium supposedly contacts the dead in the afterlife. As there is no scientific explanation for an "afterlife", do you think that the fact of mediums provides reliable evidence that such an afterlife must exist?
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 06:48:09.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:53:19 AM · #599 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Not all "messengers" are "conquering" and killing off opposing views. Most missionaries are peaceful and concerned for the welfare of those to whom they bring the message. The first rule in missionary work is to establish a basis of trust, before embarking on a program to deliver the gospel. In fact, just the opposite of what you charge is true - more often than not, it is the messengers who are killed. |
I think that the distinction is that missionaries metaphorically kill other views but are killed in personam.
Of course not all religions operate in this fashion: the Romans famously adopted local gods and practices into their own pantheon (pre-Constantine). Their religion was inclusive. If we are going to promote religious belief, then perhaps this would be a better choice of religion to promote?
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:58:48 AM · #600 |
For those who consider religion to be a harmless and personal affair, there is a current debate in the UK on a proposed act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
The Christian right is being most vocal in protesting the proposal because they wish to retain their ability to discriminate against people who are homosexual. This is one current example of a way in which an arbitrary rule in one religious tome may be brought to bear to the detriment of rational society as a whole.
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 06:59:06.
|
|
