Religious debate

[Eastoff]

yes. you can have judaism without christianity but you can't have christianity without judaism. judaism is it's own thing and jews are not christians, but at the same time christianity(in very basic terms) is judaism plus jesus.

is that better for you?

yes, can you see why I was confused?

This is how I interpreted your statement
((judiasm) christianity)

 

[Eastoff]

awesome. that is unrelated to my statements and isn't any sort of comparison at all.

(north america(united states(oregon)))

edit:
my point was that I was describing some logic that at the time I thought you lacked, excuse me.

 

[rocketeer]

yes, can you see why I was confused?

This is how I interpreted your statement
((judiasm) christianity)

i guess. i wasn't confused, though of course i knew what i meant.

 

[Eastoff]

i guess. i wasn't confused, though of course i knew what i meant.

yeah, I have that problem too =\ I think what would have been clearer to me is "part of judiasm is in part of christianity"

ok, i'm dropping it now!

 

[Eastoff]

I personally believe in an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent god one god and no other. It is the same god that all religions point to and it encompasses the entire manifest AND unmanifest world. It is pure conciousness the one without a second. As Einstein said:



I subscribe the Advaita tradition of Hinduism which to me is the same thing Jesus points to in the bible, that the Kabbalah points to in Judaisim, that the Sufi Poet Rumi writes about, that Zen Koans attempt to draw attention and what Lao Tse so masterfully described in "The Tao Te Ching".

If god is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent as all the ancient teachings of the sages across the globe then everything is God, it is one...without a second.

you sound like a baha'i... I'm pretty sure the bible says "do not worship false idols" meaning I am the one true god, the others are fake. This does not work with all religions point to the same god.

Sorry dawg!

 

[Idog1976]

you sound like a baha'i... I'm pretty sure the bible says "do not worship false idols" meaning I am the one true god, the others are fake. This does not work with all religions point to the same god.

Sorry dawg!

The bible says god is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. How can you logically conclude anything other then god is every thing and no thing. It says god is everywhere, all knowing and all powerful therefore god is the manifest universe and the unmanifested potential of the universe. The Alpha and the Omega. It's all the same and Baha'i I'm not really familliar with. I'm not particularly interested in Religion. Some people don't see it that way and that's certainly their right. No need to be sorry.

 

[Idog1976]

you sound like a baha'i... I'm pretty sure the bible says "do not worship false idols" meaning I am the one true god, the others are fake. This does not work with all religions point to the same god.

Sorry dawg!

Forgot to mention there is quite a bit of the Bible that was made out of whole cloth and only a very limited, fragmentary bit of the spiritual wisdom of Jesus. It's that wisdom that I'm talking about. I'm not referring to the Old Testament or all the cultural/mythological talk in the Bible, nor the blatant politics woven in by the Council of Nycaea. Just the few nuggets of spiritual wisdom left over from the enlightened master Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Eastoff]

Forgot to mention there is quite a bit of the Bible that was made out of whole cloth and only a very limited, fragmentary bit of the spiritual wisdom of Jesus. It's that wisdom that I'm talking about. I'm not referring to the Old Testament or all the cultural/mythological talk in the Bible, nor the blatant politics woven in by the Council of Nycaea. Just the few nuggets of spiritual wisdom left over from the enlightened master Jesus of Nazareth.

In the New Testament
Throughout the New Testament, there are warnings of both false prophets and false Messiahs, and believers are adjured to be vigilant. The following verses (Matthew 7:15-23) are from the Sermon on the Mount:
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
The New Testament addresses the same point of a false prophet predicting correctly and, Jesus predicted the future appearance of false prophets, affirming that they can perform great signs and miracles. The following verses (Matthew 24:10-13;24) are from the Olivet Discourse:
"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect –- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time" (Matthew 24:10-13;24 NIV).
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus brought out an ethical application for his disciples using the analogy of false prophets in the Old Testament:
"Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets" (Luke 6:26 NIV).
In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul and Barnabas encountered a false prophet named Elymas Bar-Jesus on the island of Cyprus. In Acts 13:6-12, we read:
"They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar‑Jesus, who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 'You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun.'
"Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord" (Acts of the Apostles 13:6-12, NIV).
This particular story likewise best matches the model found in Deuteronomy 13:1-5. The claim here is that Elymas Bar-Jesus is trying to turn Sergius Paulus from the "true faith", just like the false prophet described in the preceding verses (although Jews may legitimately argue that to worship Jesus is a form of idolatry in and of itself and likewise departing from the "true faith" -- in this article, the concern is not so much with differences between beliefs as it is with the similarities between the models). This demonstrates further evolution of this model between early Judaism and Christianity. In these verses, we do not see Elymas Bar-Jesus prophesying as the term is popularly understood, so the Deuteronomy 13:1-5 model seems to fit this scenario best.
The Second Epistle of Peter makes a comparison between false teachers and false prophets and how the former will bring in false teachings, just like the false prophets of old:
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them –- bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping" (2 Peter 2:1-3 NIV).
The First Epistle of John warns those of the Christian faith to test every spirit because of these false prophets:
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, that spirit is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world" (1 John 4:1-3 NIV).*
One popular New Testament false prophet is the false prophet mentioned in the Apocalypse of John. The Apocalypse's false prophet is the agent of the Antichrist, also known as the Beast, and he is ultimately cast with the Antichrist into the lake of "fire and brimstone"(Revelation 19:20 KJV). There are many theories and speculations surrounding this "false prophet", the "Antichrist" and their identities, but this is best discussed in an article dealing with the Antichrist specifically. There is likewise a historical model which suggests that the writer of Revelation was referring to contemporary figures such as Nero and Domitian and not some far-off end times scenario [2]

straight from wiki

There is plenty in there about "I am the true god!"

 

[Chutney]

I'm not sure how you could know what pressures might or might not have been put on people two thousand years ago, or how sincere those promoting the religion were.

barfo

Well no, we can't truly know the character of those origin figures. Jesus may have been a jive-talking con-artist, for all we know. But we can accurately gauge the pressures that people felt during those times and that can give us an idea of how sincere/committed those messages were. At the end of the day, what benefit did any of these original Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. gain from their affiliation? These religions came from a position of weakness, where they ran counter to the mainstream thought of their time. Not only that, but being apart of those religions often meant death or some other form of punishment. Neither the early followers or founders had any benefit to gain from their beliefs but they stuck to them anyways, which gives us an idea of how sincere or massively deluded they were. Scientologists on the other hand, have found a clear benefit from the very beginning.

Well I know Constantine was the first Roman Emperor in 500AD to force the Population to be Christian. So 500 years is a while, but they eventually did force their beliefs.

Yep, I admitted as much. But I was talking about origins.

 

[RR7]

Well no, we can't truly know the character of those origin figures. Jesus may have been a jive-talking con-artist, for all we know. But we can accurately gauge the pressures that people felt during those times and that can give us an idea of how sincere/committed those messages were. At the end of the day, what benefit did any of these original Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. gain from their affiliation? These religions came from a position of weakness, where they ran counter to the mainstream thought of their time. Not only that, but being apart of those religions often meant death or some other form of punishment. Neither the early followers or founders had any benefit to gain from their beliefs but they stuck to them anyways, which gives us an idea of how sincere or massively deluded they were. Scientologists on the other hand, have found a clear benefit from the very beginning.

What benefit did they gain? I'd say the not being slaughtered by the angry, vengeful god was plenty good reason to follow the religion, no? What is the clear benefit of scientologists? Public ridicule? In much the same way other members of earlier religions were probably publicly ridiculed?

 

[Chutney]

Ok but I'm assuming you come from a scientific bent is that true? If that assumption is correct (it may not be) then please point me to some scientific data that shows evidence of Free Will. To my knowledge all the science we have shows the opposite to be true, that is to say, that everything is predestined due to physical laws. This would include this internet conversation/dialogue about Free Will or the lack thereof.

Maybe the universe is theoretically determinable but practically/conceptually indeterminable. In that case, free will is just a state of mind that arises due to the limits of our conceptual faculties.

I happen to agree with that viewpoint.

 

[Chutney]

What benefit did they gain? I'd say the not being slaughtered by the angry, vengeful god was plenty good reason to follow the religion, no? What is the clear benefit of scientologists? Public ridicule? In much the same way other members of earlier religions were probably publicly ridiculed?

We're talking about converts here. They didn't believe in these new conceptions of God and really had no material incentive to. But something intrinsice about that belief system enticed them. You don't necessarily see the same among converts to Scientology, who are often tricked, lied to, and forced into staying (the horror stories are all over the internet).

As for Scientologists, I was referring to their leaders/creators. They have a clear incentive to sustain their movement because their profiting materially from it. Jesus, Moses, etc. didn't.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

I just got home from Borders where I picked up this gem:

It's gotten rave reviews, apparently.

 

[Eastoff]

Maybe the universe is theoretically determinable but practically/conceptually indeterminable. In that case, free will is just a state of mind that arises due to the limits of our conceptual faculties.

I happen to agree with that viewpoint.

just for reference, the universe is theoretically not fully determinable. Only likelihoods and probabilities.

 

[zєяσ]

I just hate it when people use the god of the gaps theory. In others, when you don't know something, the answer becomes "goddidit". I could easily say fairiesdidit with such logic.

I figure myself as an agnostic atheist. If there is proof of a deity or such (and it has to be some damn good evidence), then I would believe in it. But thus far, there really isnt any proof. The burden of proof is on the theists, not me.

As for religion, to me, it was something created during humankind's infancy period and has refused to go away because for so long we had no clue how things worked. And it seems we strive to be the most important thing in existence due to that ignorance. With that said, religion was acceptable, but I think it is something that pretty will wittle away or should.
One thing I've learned is that one does not need religion or hope for a deity in order to be moral.

 

[BrianFromWA]

how would an atheist agnostic adherent define "moral"?

 

[zєяσ]

how would an atheist agnostic adherent define "moral"?

Do you believe that a God is necessary for morals?

From what I've seen via experience and studied about human history is that morals change through time. In the case of religion, it usually remains constant unless it is hijacked by modernism or philosophy. (In the case for christianity, it was pretty much hijacked by western philosophy).
And as far as I know from my experiences, I'm one of the few people I know that doesn't see Jesus as a model for moral perfection.

As far as moralities are concerned with atheists, it varies. Atheism is essentially a rejection of a belief. It has no values. Does this mean atheists are immoral? Of course not. Each individual has a moral code, whether developed via a religion, book, experiences life, etc. Some atheists are for gay marriage. Others are not. Others support torture. Some atheists do not. It varies. As for me, i"m a secular humanist.

 

[crowTrobot]

how would an atheist agnostic adherent define "moral"?

behavior that has been judged by evolved social convention and our collective modern common sense to be beneficial for human society.

 

[Eastoff]

how would an atheist agnostic adherent define "moral"?

Doing for others what you would want others to do for you. I think there are two basic mindsets for an agnostic, you are either in it as a collective or you're in it for yourself.

 

[Chutney]

how would an atheist agnostic adherent define "moral"?

There are so many moral theories out there that don't appeal to religious doctrine, that this question just seems so short-sighted. Religions don't have a monopoly on morality.

 

[Eastoff]

There are so many moral theories out there that don't appeal to religious doctrine, that this question just seems so short-sighted. Religions don't have a monopoly on morality.

Yes they do, you landed on christianity, and it has 4 houses built. You have to pay 600$

 

[Chutney]

Yes they do, you landed on christianity, and it has 4 houses built. You have to pay 600$

One day I hope to land on free parking.

 

[Eastoff]

One day I hope to land on free parking.

You can, it is in the motherland of communist Sweden!

 

[Chutney]

You can, it is in the motherland of communist Sweden!

So much better than $500.

 

[Eastoff]

So much better than $500.

the healthcare might be free, but I think this time you'll need that 500$

 

[BrianFromWA]

There are so many moral theories out there that don't appeal to religious doctrine, that this question just seems so short-sighted. Religions don't have a monopoly on morality.

How does it seem short-sighted? I asked how you defined morality. Your statement of "religions don't have a monopoly on morality" is completely false or perhaps true, based upon your definition of it. Since I'm not an atheist or agnostic and definitely not both, I asked the question to see what you thought.

Doing for others what you would want others to do for you. I think there are two basic mindsets for an agnostic, you are either in it as a collective or you're in it for yourself.

behavior that has been judged by evolved social convention and our collective modern common sense to be beneficial for human society.

Without getting into a deep philosophical debate, my understanding is that most definitions of morality are based upon societal rules influenced heavily by whatever religion is prevalent in that society. One of the hypotheses (perhaps among many) is that when one sees themselves as independent of any real or imagined higher power, then they are free to live and act how they'd like. And many times (though not all), the way one would like to live and act concerns one's own well-being, and not that of the collective/society. The primary reason being: who are you to tell me what to do? Why can't I have sex with my cousin, divorce my wife, marry 7 women, have my child work in a factory instead of going to school, etc?
The belief in the higher power/Imaginary Friend generally takes care of that question. Whether it's Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. there is an implication that someone who created the universe/reached total enlightenment/was divinely inspired has told the populace how things should be run, and though generally it's countercultural to the way things have become, the people accept it. I can't think of a society (going back to Hammurabi) that codified a set of morals that encouraged people to do what they wanted to. In addition, the reason the morals had to be codified was because there's an inherent anarchy in letting people do what they want that's detrimental to society.

There's a ton more I'd like to write, but I just wanted to respond quickly.

 

[Eastoff]

How does it seem short-sighted? I asked how you defined morality. Your statement of "religions don't have a monopoly on morality" is completely false or perhaps true, based upon your definition of it. Since I'm not an atheist or agnostic and definitely not both, I asked the question to see what you thought.



Without getting into a deep philosophical debate, my understanding is that most definitions of morality are based upon societal rules influenced heavily by whatever religion is prevalent in that society. One of the hypotheses (perhaps among many) is that when one sees themselves as independent of any real or imagined higher power, then they are free to live and act how they'd like. And many times (though not all), the way one would like to live and act concerns one's own well-being, and not that of the collective/society. The primary reason being: who are you to tell me what to do? Why can't I have sex with my cousin, divorce my wife, marry 7 women, have my child work in a factory instead of going to school, etc?
The belief in the higher power/Imaginary Friend generally takes care of that question. Whether it's Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. there is an implication that someone who created the universe/reached total enlightenment/was divinely inspired has told the populace how things should be run, and though generally it's countercultural to the way things have become, the people accept it. I can't think of a society (going back to Hammurabi) that codified a set of morals that encouraged people to do what they wanted to. In addition, the reason the morals had to be codified was because there's an inherent anarchy in letting people do what they want that's detrimental to society.

There's a ton more I'd like to write, but I just wanted to respond quickly.

uhh... are you like ignoring my response?

 

[zєяσ]

How does it seem short-sighted? I asked how you defined morality. Your statement of "religions don't have a monopoly on morality" is completely false or perhaps true, based upon your definition of it. Since I'm not an atheist or agnostic and definitely not both, I asked the question to see what you thought.



Without getting into a deep philosophical debate, my understanding is that most definitions of morality are based upon societal rules influenced heavily by whatever religion is prevalent in that society. One of the hypotheses (perhaps among many) is that when one sees themselves as independent of any real or imagined higher power, then they are free to live and act how they'd like. And many times (though not all), the way one would like to live and act concerns one's own well-being, and not that of the collective/society. The primary reason being: who are you to tell me what to do? Why can't I have sex with my cousin, divorce my wife, marry 7 women, have my child work in a factory instead of going to school, etc?
The belief in the higher power/Imaginary Friend generally takes care of that question. Whether it's Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. there is an implication that someone who created the universe/reached total enlightenment/was divinely inspired has told the populace how things should be run, and though generally it's countercultural to the way things have become, the people accept it. I can't think of a society (going back to Hammurabi) that codified a set of morals that encouraged people to do what they wanted to. In addition, the reason the morals had to be codified was because there's an inherent anarchy in letting people do what they want that's detrimental to society.

There's a ton more I'd like to write, but I just wanted to respond quickly.

Many other organisms, animals, etc. function with some sort of governance. Wolves, for example, are a good example of this. But this is no evidence of a god or gods. Sometimes when we don't know an answer to the big questions, we form one based on our observations. The thing with gods though is that people did not look far enough. And it seems you are implying that the only for people to be moral is if their is a god. If people try to be moral out of fear of eternal damnation, then imo, they aren't moral. Would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?

Of course, once one says that there is a god or gods, then that opens up like 20 new questions. I guess in this case I prefer the Occam's Razor method. But as I said before, once you make a claim, you then have the burden of proof. In our early days, we didn't have high standards for proof. Just to add, the epicurus paradoxes/riddles help simplify the matter:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

 

[BrianFromWA]

uhh... are you like ignoring my response?

Of course not! I quoted it!

 

[zєяσ]

So much better than $500.

Because it needs to be quoted