Religions

[gejyspa]

Yeah, sorry for the post-bombing, but with the play and everything (and my addiction to the online game Elements), I've fallen behind with my email reading.

[Chris]

Yeah, sorry for the post-bombing, but with the play and everything (and my addiction to the online game Elements), I've fallen behind with my email reading.

Great game! I haven't played much recently, but I return to it now and again.

[RedQueen.exe]

(like Chris's example came from how Christians believe their savior died on a cross for everyone's sin (a concept only found in Christianity, from what I've studied))..

You need to study more. The Hindoo Sakia, Hesus of the Celtic Droids, Chrishna.... Actually there are many more occurances that pre-date christianity that have a god dying via crucifixion for the world's sins.

Exactly. This is why some atheists are fond of the saying that "teaching one religion indoctrinates, teaching many religions inoculates". When you see how much the various religions borrow ideas from each other and offshoot from each other, you realize --- this is exactly what you would expect of an idea that is an entirely man-made, cultural phenomenon.

Or perhaps, to express the dea that both Islam and Bahá'í express, it's not because religions "borrow ideas" from other religions, but more simply -- because the stuff is actually true, but the other religions have simply gotten it wrong in some respect. That is, they have corrupted, misinterpreted, or otherwise not understood aspects of what happened. So, not borrowig, but common experience.

That's one way of looking at it, though I think that might qualify as special pleading.

It seems omnipotence would include some skill at writing, or inspiriting writing, which could not be (mis)interpreted in so many different ways. How would a god truly expect people to know which sect is correct when each one claims to be and shares so many similar features?

"Every church pretends that it has a revelation from God, and that this revelation must be given to the people through the church; that the church acts through its priests, and that ordinary mortals must be content with a revelation — not from God — but from the church. Had the people submitted to this preposterous claim, of course there could have been but one church, and that church never could have advanced. It might have retrograded, because it is not necessary to think or investigate in order to forget. Without heresy there could have been no progress." - Robert G. Ingersoll

What I get at with that, and the other bit about religion changing what it considers moral and immoral behavior, are two things. One, it is often claimed that a god is required for objective morality, despite the fact that theisms morality does not appear to be objective, but instead appears to shift to match the culture. Two, it is often framed that acceptance of religion is about believing or trusting god, when it is instead about trusting what other PEOPLE say about god. Where is the secluded tribe that has arrived at Christianity and produced an identical bible without any historical contact with Christianity, or one that has done the same with Islam or Judaism? If I saw one religion spontaneously cropping up near-identically, with identical ideas about the deity and his/her/its wishes in groups that had no contact with each other, which held in the face of alternative explanations, that would seem decent evidence that people might actually be in direct contact with some kind of force that is influencing them and/or communicating with them, rather than people just interpreting vague experiences through a lens of cultural knowledge.

[Henkie]

This discussion has made me agnostic.

[RedQueen.exe]

I'm agnostic about the discussion.

[Alladinsane]

The Bible never changes... There are different translations, but its the same one.
Some seem to have a problem with religions, yeah me too.

But most don't really have a problem with God, and most don't even seem to know him.
That may be the tragedy that I observe here. Shame... He tells you everything, but I understand. Took me a year to read the thing cover to cover. I still didn't know him. Rhetoric and parallel comparison are skirting the issue though.

I know him now. We all serve somebody or some thing, Yes -all- of us. Some of us havent figured it out yet.
All of the sudden I want to listen to Bob Dylan.

[RedQueen.exe]

Reminds me of Dawkins's "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

That's actually the one thing that sticks in my craw a bit, is when claims are made about a particular sect, but when the faith is attacked, the defender retreats to the position of deism. Well, I doubt I would have much issue with deists since, as I've seen, it's the bare belief in a higher being without much to say about how we ought to live our lives with that knowledge. A deist then, would not attempt to lean on faith and revelation in matters of politics and morality. Were I ever to come "back into the fold", so to speak, I think deism would be as far as I could ever venture back. Of course, given the atrocities that such a god would have to be allowing to take place, I don't see how I could respect such a god unless it was not omniscient, not omnipotent, or neither.

Sometimes I wonder about the possibility of a god that rewards atheism. A god that set the universe spinning and then sat back to someday ask the theists: "Why did you believe in me, when I gave you no reason to do so? Why did you cut the throats of your fellow human beings over disagreements about what I said, when I never said anything at all? How could you look at the enormous size, and frequent destruction in the universe and have the narcissism to think this incredibly vast stage was all set with you in mind?" I think I think about it every time Pascal's Wager implicitly comes up.

[gejyspa]

(like Chris's example came from how Christians believe their savior died on a cross for everyone's sin (a concept only found in Christianity, from what I've studied))..

You need to study more. The Hindoo Sakia, Hesus of the Celtic Droids, Chrishna.... Actually there are many more occurances that pre-date christianity that have a god dying via crucifixion for the world's sins.

Exactly. This is why some atheists are fond of the saying that "teaching one religion indoctrinates, teaching many religions inoculates". When you see how much the various religions borrow ideas from each other and offshoot from each other, you realize --- this is exactly what you would expect of an idea that is an entirely man-made, cultural phenomenon.

Or perhaps, to express the dea that both Islam and Bahá'í express, it's not because religions "borrow ideas" from other religions, but more simply -- because the stuff is actually true, but the other religions have simply gotten it wrong in some respect. That is, they have corrupted, misinterpreted, or otherwise not understood aspects of what happened. So, not borrowig, but common experience.

That's one way of looking at it, though I think that might qualify as special pleading.

It seems omnipotence would include some skill at writing, or inspiriting writing, which could not be (mis)interpreted in so many different ways. How would a god truly expect people to know which sect is correct when each one claims to be and shares so many similar features?

You underestimate the ingenuity of humans to interpret any writing (or for that matter, any experience) through their own lens of understanding and bias. Part of that whole "free will" package, again.

What I get at with that, and the other bit about religion changing what it considers moral and immoral behavior, are two things. One, it is often claimed that a god is required for objective morality, despite the fact that theisms morality does not appear to be objective, but instead appears to shift to match the culture. Two, it is often framed that acceptance of religion is about believing or trusting god, when it is instead about trusting what other PEOPLE say about god. Where is the secluded tribe that has arrived at Christianity and produced an identical bible without any historical contact with Christianity, or one that has done the same with Islam or Judaism? If I saw one religion spontaneously cropping up near-identically, with identical ideas about the deity and his/her/its wishes in groups that had no contact with each other, which held in the face of alternative explanations, that would seem decent evidence that people might actually be in direct contact with some kind of force that is influencing them and/or communicating with them, rather than people just interpreting vague experiences through a lens of cultural knowledge.

Of course, any issue will be justified by saying God agrees with your side {slavery vs. abolition, anti-life vs. anti-choice, gay marriage vs. "defense of marriage", Republican vs. Democrat, (resisting impulse to invoke Godwin's Law here) etc}. That's okay. Nothing short of pretty much God himself appearing and straightening out things will clear up the matter. Hence many religion's claims of just that.

But as I said before, I'm perfectly okay with the idea of God interacting with different societies in different ways, and giving them laws that fit their needs. I don't need to invoke things like the widespread stories about a worldwide deluge

[Chris]

Pat Robertson Says People could have Stopped Deadly Tornadoes through Prayer

Pat Robertson, who earlier called tornadoes a sign of the End Times, was asked today on the 700 Club about the tornadoes that have ravaged parts the country and killed at least thirty-nine people. He said that the storms weren’t a malicious act of God and instead turned it around on the victims, asking, “why did you build houses where tornadoes were apt to happen?”

However, Robertson in 2010 did believe that God used natural disasters to hurt people, saying that Haiti’s earthquake was a result of the Haitian people’s alleged “pact to the Devil.”

Robertson continued that the tornadoes may not have happened if people had prayed for divine intervention, “If enough people were praying He would’ve intervened, you could pray, Jesus stilled the storm, you can still storms.” He also told people who live in areas prone to natural disasters that it’s “their fault, not God’s.”

I suppose that Robertson gets points for consistency, but he has to be monstrous in the process. When "bad" things happen, the victims must be at fault because a just God let those "bad" things happen. So you see, those things weren't really bad. Faithless people were getting their just desert.

[Snickie]

So what about the people who were killed in gruesome natural disasters while preaching their faiths? Did their god send it because they had "made a pact with the devil"?

Sometimes bad things happen to good, faithful people.

Going on Pat Robertson's stories of natural disasters, several years ago in February, there was a massive storm that spawned tornadoes near the Villages, and I remember there was a tornado that went straight for the Church of Christ in that area. Granted, history has shown that God has taken out churches that were corrupt and whatnot. But still.

[RedQueen.exe]

Obviously there are more weak-willed sinners on fault lines and in flood zones. It's a proven fact. Their evil nature naturally draws them en masse to places where it is possible for god to punish them.

[Alladinsane]

Sarcasm aside.

Earthquakes, tornados, all of the things we call "acts of God" are anything but.
I think the term was invented so that insurance companies don't have to pay.
Can he create them, sure, he's God. Can he stop them...Sure, he's God.

But asking why he does or does not misses the whole point of who he is.

[Addicted]

Opting out

[Rebma]

... And socially, gay marriage isn't bad except for the fact that marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman and not a man&man or woman&woman. It's wrong according to my morals, and the book of Leviticus doesn't exactly treat them well (it apparently doesn't treat women well, but I've yet to read that section for myself), but it's not up to us to deny them equal rights and judge their preferences and decisions.

I had to backtrack to this because I found a picture today, and the first thought in my head was remembering this very paragraph you said. So, well done.

[Addicted]

opting out