|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2001 : 10:45:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
[quote]
Consider slavery. I, and probably most people these days, consider this to be an extremely immoral institution. Yet for centuries, people who attended church "religiously" kept slaves and found no moral issue in doing so. I suspect the reason was that they never really thought about it. As long as they were following the moral requirements laid out by the priest, they figured they had the moral thing covered. If the bible was the final arbiter of morality and there wasn't any commandment specifically saying "Thou shalt not enslave they fellow man", then they figured it must be OK.
Don't confuse slavery with indentured servitude or bondslavery. The slavery in this country was due to racism. Other forms were often due to debt. At the end of the alotted time, your debt was paid and you were considered free. A bondslave was someone who chose, after their period of restitution was resolved, to remain with the family for the rest of their lives. I would agree that some forms of slavery are wrong, but not all.
As for the commandment, I think that would fall under treating your neighbor as yourself. A specific commandment was not necessary.
Jim
Um, no I would suggest you actually read your bible. Your god laid out specific rules on who could be owned as slaves and who could be indentured servants. And treatment of said slaves and servants. Even your christ aknowledged slavery and ok'd owning slaves. This was how many got around the issue of slavery and justified the owning of slaves. They had biblical justification. For an easy and quick reference you might try the skeptics annotated bible. There's a link here somewhere....
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 11:10:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There can be no proof. It is an answerable question, just not in these 4 dimensions. God is supernatural, and therefore cannot be proven with natural science.
If god can not be proven by science then that god is a non-entity. It would seem to me a rather callous attitude to take with ones creation, to create it and leave it.
quote:
If God created us with our own will, which he obviously did, then his appearance in our reality would be a violation of that free will, thus forcing us to believe in him.
Couple of things here. The Judeo-Christian god is generally defined as omniscient and omnipotent. This means that god is all knowing and all powerful. By that definition freewill can not exist, because god is all knowing - he knows before you make your decisions what they will be and he is all powerful - he can control your very actions to make you believe in him. So either he knows and doesn't care what your decisions are by not enacting control over those who would go against his dictates or he is not all powerful and all knowing.
quote:
If God wanted to get you a message without violating your free will, how would he do so? Not only that, is he doing it know? My faith says yes, but I can't prove it to anyone else.
For god so loved the world he sent his only son. He's already tried manifesting himself on this earth according to christianity. As for the freewill issue - please see above. I can not reconcile faith with reality.
quote:
If God was to show up right now in human history to tell us something, and we knew without a doubt that it was God, how would we pass the event on to the people who are not born yet? How would we prove to them that it was God?
With reproducable evidence of his existence. Otherwise his appearance could be construed as a mass hallucenation.
quote:
To me God's existence is an issue of faith not proof.
...gods were created by man to explain that which he did not or could not understand. Proof would show us which god is real vs. those that are false or whether there is more than one devine entity.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 14:03:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There can be no proof. It is an answerable question, just not in these 4 dimensions. God is supernatural, and therefore cannot be proven with natural science.
If god can not be proven by science then that god is a non-entity. It would seem to me a rather callous attitude to take with ones creation, to create it and leave it.
By our scientific methods, God is a non-entity, like I said, God can't be proven naturally. God exists outside the time domain, He is not subject to it. Figure out God's mass and acceleration, you can prove His existence.
quote:
If God created us with our own will, which he obviously did, then his appearance in our reality would be a violation of that free will, thus forcing us to believe in him.
Couple of things here. The Judeo-Christian god is generally defined as omniscient and omnipotent. This means that god is all knowing and all powerful. By that definition freewill can not exist, because god is all knowing - he knows before you make your decisions what they will be and he is all powerful - he can control your very actions to make you believe in him. So either he knows and doesn't care what your decisions are by not enacting control over those who would go against his dictates or he is not all powerful and all knowing.
A God has to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable, and infinite. Violate either one of these, no God. This has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God.
God does know the outcome, he has to. You can also forfeit your free will, can you not? It is not something you have to hold on to, is it? This is probably not a satisfying answer.
quote:
If God wanted to get you a message without violating your free will, how would he do so? Not only that, is he doing it know? My faith says yes, but I can't prove it to anyone else.
For god so loved the world he sent his only son. He's already tried manifesting himself on this earth according to christianity. As for the freewill issue - please see above. I can not reconcile faith with reality.
Faith does not deal with reality, directly. Once reality is recognized, it becomes knowledge. We all have faith. We have to assume that we are not just a brain being stimulated in a laboratory, and that what connects with our five senses is, in fact, real. If not, insanity.
quote:
If God was to show up right now in human history to tell us something, and we knew without a doubt that it was God, how would we pass the event on to the people who are not born yet? How would we prove to them that it was God?
With reproducable evidence of his existence. Otherwise his appearance could be construed as a mass hallucenation.
What physical evidence could you devise that could not be scientifically rationalized away?
quote:
To me God's existence is an issue of faith not proof.
...gods were created by man to explain that which he did not or could not understand. Proof would show us which god is real vs. those that are false or whether there is more than one devine entity.
You still haven't provided what proof you would like. You're affirming my statement.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 07/29/2001 14:18:25 |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 14:08:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Um, no I would suggest you actually read your bible. Your god laid out specific rules on who could be owned as slaves and who could be indentured servants. And treatment of said slaves and servants. Even your christ aknowledged slavery and ok'd owning slaves. This was how many got around the issue of slavery and justified the owning of slaves. They had biblical justification. For an easy and quick reference you might try the skeptics annotated bible. There's a link here somewhere....
I have read the Bible, and to my knowledge there is not one case of Christ condoning immoral slavery. You are confusing the term with servant or bondservant, they are different. If this was the case, why did God lead the nation of Isreal out of captivity in Egypt? He did allow them to be held captive later, but that was their own doing.
If you have a specific reference, post it and I'll do my best with it.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 07/29/2001 14:22:01 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 17:33:42 [Permalink]
|
It is in no way possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god with todays methods. I also assert that there never will be. I.e. WE will never be able to prove gods existence. This leaves one way to attain proof of his/hers/its existence, though.
That god will have to provide the evidence. To everyone, everywhere. And doing it once won't be enough. Every new person/alien born in this universe will need to be supplied with this evidence. Once every 2000 years on planet Earth will not do.
What would this evidence be, then? It must obviously not be able for a natural being to replicate it. A burning bush might do. Say for example if everyone everywhere at the same time on this planet saw a bush burning and heard it speak in their native tongue something along the lines of "I EXIST". Ouch. It's not good enough. What about the deaf and/or the blind?
Lets have the god do that exercise in our minds instead. Yes, everyone, everywhere, generation after generation gets the mental message "I EXIST" at some point in their lives (preferably early enough in life to cast of unnecessary doubt for too long, and late enough to not seem like childhood fantasy).
This would leave the Arthur C. Clarks in us asking if it just isn't some sufficiently advanced technology doing this magic feat. Of course, any such thoughts must me suppressed by the deity.
Up, up and away!!! |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 18:40:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't confuse slavery with indentured servitude or bondslavery. The slavery in this country was due to racism. Other forms were often due to debt. At the end of the alotted time, your debt was paid and you were considered free. A bondslave was someone who chose, after their period of restitution was resolved, to remain with the family for the rest of their lives. I would agree that some forms of slavery are wrong, but not all. As for the commandment, I think that would fall under treating your neighbor as yourself. A specific commandment was not necessary.
To clarify, I was referring to the kind of slavery wherein human beings are sold by their enemies to slave traders who put them in chains, stuff them into boats like cord wood, transport them to distant lands and sell them on auction blocks to plantation owners who brand them and set them to work under often brutal conditions without any compensation. The kind practiced in the Southern part of the US as well as most of Central and South America for centuries. Most of these plantation owners considered themselves good upstanding Christians. The priests and preachers in the churches where they prayed knew the bible quite well but never condemned either their racism or their institutions of slavery.
Whether the bible condoned this kind of behavior or not is irrelevant to my argument. The fact was that the bible did not clearly enough condemn these practices to discourage the slave holders or to bring admonitions from their priests.
I agree that an explicit commandment not to practice slavery or racism should not have been required if one were to accurately apply the golden rule.
But that would require the person to actually think about how the rule applied to the situation. The problem with religion is that the kind of blind faith it demands doesn't really lend itself to this kind of introspection. You have the written word as the final arbiter of morality, you have the priest or preacher to interpret it. All you have to do is follow their lead and you can sleep soundly at night knowing the you are in with Jesus even if you do consider people with a skin color different from your own to be sub humans who can be bought, sold, and beaten like pack animals.
|
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 07:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What does that actually mean to you? Dictionary says that faith is an "unquestioning belief"---but you are asking questions. Including the one--what's wrong with asking questions?
You're right, I didn't put down what I meant clearly enough (wasn't sure how to, hence the single quotes) What I meant was, I need to prove to myself, for myself, that the belief and 'faith' I had were invalid, and noone else can do it for me :)
quote:
One reason I still follow the Bible is because, …, it is a good set of morals to live by.
[snip]
- Hate the sin, love the sinner (hard. damn hard to do.)
First off these don't originally come from the bible. They were in common usage for hundreds (if not thousands) of years before the bible was written.
I know, I know, it is common sense.
quote:
Except, of course the last one which is brand new and contradicts what you just said at the end of the "neighbor" one.
The last one is senseless anyway.
A woman drowns her two children. You are to hate the murder but not the murderess as though she had no self-responsibility? Get real.
As I said, that would be a damn hard thing to do. Our society cannot accept and condone those heinous acts that some people perpetrate. Would it be possible that you could love a person who did a thing like that? Is there noone anywhere who still loves that person? (Case in point is the NASA computer engineer whose wife just killed their 5 children. His life has just been ripped apart, but directly after that tragic event he still professed to be supporting her) So, with the 'prison' system (which is purportedly for punishing these criminals) becoming more and more a system of 'rehabilitation' (which, in my country at least, ISNT WORKING), is it possible we can punish these people and yet retain a sense of compassion for them? And beyond that question, should we even try? Or have they given up their right to compassion? I state this as a person with little or no reason for bias. I've never been molested, assaulted, or raped. All of the people I know who have been raped and/or molested have not attempted to have the perpetrator prosecuted or even investigate. Some of them were called liars by their own families. None of them are going to be too damn inclined to show compassion.
So, as I said, it is a damn hard thing to do. Should we even bother to try? I think that is a personal question, and each person has to decide for themselves.
quote:
Why would I require rock solid proof? Faith is a deep-rooted thing in many people. Ripping it up by the roots generally required irrefutable proof.
Why would you not require proof about this topic when you do about every other aspect of your life? Why would you require evidence and substantiation when you buy a used car but not when you take on a philosophy that governs and guides your entire life?
Using a car purchase as an example is a bad idea. If you don't check out the car you can kill yourself by hitting a tree when the wheel bearing gives and you go in the ditch (happened to a friend of mine). Unless you are a fanatical follower, or are invaded by fanatical followers of another religion (sect, denom, etc) religion never killed anyone (lucky for the Witnesses, hmm?)
I will continue. Be warned.
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 07:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Continued..
quote:
Where did you get the idea that faith was a positive thing in itself? What is the difference between 'belief' in 'faith' and simple credulity?
Hmm, not sure how I implied that. I don't see how faith could be taken as a positive thing, it is simply a thing that I was born into. Rather like eating cheese. I like cheese. Some people dont. That's fine with me!
The difference between faith and simple credulity for me is, if say, someone told me the moon was made of green cheese (yum) I would be able to inquire and see if anyone had samples of the cheese, if there were cheese in the moon rocks that Apollo missions brought back, and if the cheese stuck to the astro's boots. Since the pictures of the Apollo missions do not look cheesy (well, I guess it could be grated romano) I can conclude with a reasonable certainty that there is no cheese in our part of space. If religion were this easy to disprove to people, well, this thread quite simply would not exist, don't you agree?
quote:
I want to have the time to know more than this paltry lifespan gives me. I am not satisfied with …
A valid emotional response. But only an emotional response. They reflect only your desires and do not mirror the actual world.
Quite right, but I am an emotional creature and my emotions, for the most part, dictate the choices I make in life (logic is good for much in science but does not have as much application in one's family life.. unless money gets involved, of course.) Doesn't change the fact that I want my own little fairy tale to be possible. And I will figure it out for myself in the end.
Thanks for the soap box moment, and the other posters as well ;)
Oh, and one last thing; on slavery and bondserventry.. how many years and in how many societies has this NOT been an accepted practice? As abhorrent as it is to us now, I think modern society is unique in this aspect, and perhaps this should be taken into account? (and there are those rules regarding the treatment of slaves and bondservants in the OT, Deuteronomy I believe. For Jim's info  )
[Kristin steps off]
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement.
Edited by - kristin on 07/30/2001 08:01:28 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 09:05:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If religion were this easy to disprove to people, well, this thread quite simply would not exist, don't you agree?
This is what is so fascinating (and frustrating) to me. It should be this simple. There is no more reason for believing in a god(s) than there is to believe that the moon is made of cheese. There are just feelings and wishful thinking (faith, if you will). If I had 'faith' that Santa Claus really existed, wouldn't you think I was nuts? Why not apply the same rules to religion?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 10:56:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
If religion were this easy to disprove to people, well, this thread quite simply would not exist, don't you agree?
This is what is so fascinating (and frustrating) to me. It should be this simple. There is no more reason for believing in a god(s) than there is to believe that the moon is made of cheese. There are just feelings and wishful thinking (faith, if you will). If I had 'faith' that Santa Claus really existed, wouldn't you think I was nuts? Why not apply the same rules to religion?
There are evidential arguments to be made against the existence of Santa Claus and cheesy moons, are there any such arguments to be made against the existence of God? Has anyone yet posted an attempted proof or disproof of God's existence? Certainly there are such arguments to be discussed if anyone is interested.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 11:17:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Cool this is starting well with honest and above board answers
---------------------
The folly of arguement for proving the existence of God is that you must first quantify God. Once God becomes a known, it ceases to be devine.
Then by this argument no one can ever claim that there is a god or goddess as their very knowledge of this fact would negate the assertion.
I believe that there is a central creative force in the universe and it split itself into the God and Goddess. Can I prove it? No.
If you cannot prove it then you cannot truly say that you know it. If the truth of the assertion is not demonstrable then the asserter cannot claim that he is stating the truth. Even if is should turn out at some future time that the assertion was true, as there was no way for him to have known it at the time.
The most you can say is that this is something that you want to be true. But you cannot state it's (their) existence as being a fact.
Slater,
In no place did I state that the existence of a supreme being as fact. I believe there is one, but your view is equally valid.
The most I can come up with for the existance of a supreme being are highly emotionally charged anecdotal events.
I don't believe it is possible to change anyone's views on religion without emotional appeal. The whole function of religion (Which Marx called "the opiate of the masses") is to provide psychological comfort to the practioners. Also, it gives opinions on where we (the sentient portion of ourselves i.e. the "soul") go after we die. It also has the task of generating a moral code of conduct.
As faith is an emotional state of mind, proving it using logic is impossible.
I'm not trying to convert anyone to a particular religion. All I can do is let people know about my religion. (Often times to defend it agaist those who misrepresent the tenants of the religion.)
The claim of the existance of a supreme being based on emotional feeling/faith does not quantify scientifically that existance. I can claim that I can bend spoons with my mind. (I can't BTW.) but to collect the Amazing Randy's cash, I have to scientifically prove it. I have deep beliefs in my religion, they are all emotionally based.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 11:39:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It also has the task of generating a moral code of conduct.
Since we are talking about religion in general and not any specific one, I do not see this a a necessary function of religion. It is likely that moral codes evolved by trial and error in the ancient (prehistoric) communities that came about when humankind went from hunter/gatherer groups to larger, more complex agricultural societies. I have seen no evidence that these codes were attached to religious belief early on. Does anyone have any insight? Just because modern western religion considers itself the source of moral teaching in our society, doesn't mean that we can project this back 10,000 years.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 11:46:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh, and one last thing; on slavery and bondservantry.. how many years and in how many societies has this NOT been an accepted practice? As abhorrent as it is to us now, I think modern society is unique in this aspect, and perhaps this should be taken into account? (and there are those rules regarding the treatment of slaves and bondservants in the OT, Deuteronomy I believe. For Jim's info )
I'm not entirely sure if such moral issues can be taken to disprove the existence of God, but I suppose the argument might look something like the following:
1. If there is a (Judeo-Christian) God, He proclaimed the Torah. (definition of God)
2. If there is a (Judeo-Christian) God, He is morally perfect. (definition of God)
3. If God makes moral proclamations, they are perfect. (only perfection proceeds from perfection)
4. The Torah is morally imperfect. (assumption)
5. The Torah cannot be the moral proclamation of God. (3 & 4)
6. If God exists, He proclaimed the Torah and did not proclaim the Torah. (1 & 5)
7. God cannot exist. (principle of non-contradiction)
The main problem here is that premise (3) is based on a questionable argument. Who said that the perfection ordinarily attributed to God by theist entails creating only more perfection? If that were so, we'd have a strong argument against God from our own existence.
Moreover, many theist would not grant (4), instead arguing that the Torah was the best moral code for the ancient Hebrews at the time. The counterargument here is essentially that you should give people as the moral code which helps them to live as best as they can given their realistic and societal constraints, rather than a perfect moral code which they would despair of following whatsoever.
Naturally, if someone else can think of a better way to proceed from morally deficient OT commands to the nonexistence of God, I'd be interested in hearing it.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 12:00:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It also has the task of generating a moral code of conduct.
Since we are talking about religion in general and not any specific one, I do not see this a a necessary function of religion. It is likely that moral codes evolved by trial and error in the ancient (prehistoric) communities that came about when humankind went from hunter/gatherer groups to larger, more complex agricultural societies. I have seen no evidence that these codes were attached to religious belief early on. Does anyone have any insight? Just because modern western religion considers itself the source of moral teaching in our society, doesn't mean that we can project this back 10,000 years.
I think a survey of primitive animistic religions might well indicate that religion has been in the morality buisness just about as long as it has been around. Hunter gatherers from time immemorial have attributed the various aspects of nature to personalized forces, and have taken bad luck in hunting and gathering to indicate their displeasure. It is but a small leap to attribute one's own natural feelings of guilt and shame to having disappointed not only one's family and oneself but also the invisible forces thought to be watching over all.
Anyhow, there is certainly nothing logically connecting religion and ethics unless one explicitly defines one in terms of the other. I see good reasons why this should be the case, if indeed there is some sort of higher power. Otherwise, ethics is merely the rational pursuit of our own goods or ends in this lifetime.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 12:42:28 [Permalink]
|
There can be no proof. It is an answerable question, just not in these 4 dimensions. God is supernatural, and therefore cannot be proven with natural science.
So is this an admission that you have no valid reason to believe in god?
Before you can make claims that anything is "supernatural" you are going to have to verify the existence of a "supernatural". So far ever claim of the supernatural that has been investigated by science has been shown to be either a misinterpretation of a natural event or an out and out fraud. The evidence strongly indicates that there is no such thing as "super" natural.
If God created us with our own will, which he obviously did, then his appearance in our reality would be a violation of that free will, thus forcing us to believe in him. If God wanted to get you a message without violating your free will, how would he do so?
You do realize that this pan dimensional, non-interfering, non-experiential god is not the standard Christian god. This is Gnosticism plain and simple. It's Okay by me, but it is heresy.
The Christian god pokes his nose into human affairs in every story about him.
Frogs in the bathroom (Moses), fire balls burning the crops and employees while a building is caused to crush innocent children (Job) mates turning into spices (Lot and the "Spice girl") and the worst of all threats of INFINITE punishment for FINITE offences (Jesus) unless you do exactly as he says.
Not only that, is he doing it know? My faith says yes, but I can't prove it to anyone else.
But that is the very question of this thread. What is your faith based on
Saying that you have no proof to share with anyone else directly implies that you have no proof at all. If you have none at all what can be your logic for believing these bizarre stories?
If God was to show up right now in human history to tell us something, and we knew without a doubt that it was God, how would we pass the event on to the people who are not born yet? How would we prove to them that it was God?
Huh? What? The exact same ways we pass on all our information. Why would god be any different?
Hey, if I say the words "T. Rex" an image pops into your mind. But the last T Rex was long dead 64 million years before the first human. We have no trouble passing information along.
To me God's existence is an issue of faith not proof.
What else in your life do you apply these same criteria to?
----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
What I meant was, I need to prove to myself, for myself, that the belief and 'faith' I had were invalid, and no one else can do it for me
Actually you have to do the exact opposite.
The invalidity of ANY supposition is assumed. It is the base line that one must work from. You must prove your supposition is valid.
It's the same as being innocent until proven guilty. Anybody can take you to court on any cock & bull claim that they please (they are making the supposition). You do not have to prove that you are innocent (supposition is automatically (logically) considered invalid) the ones who make the claim have the burden of proof.
You claim there is a god, then it is up to you to prove it.
Would it be possible that you could love a person who did a thing like that? Is there no one anywhere who still loves that person? (Case in point is the NASA computer engineer whose wife just killed their 5 children. His
life has just been ripped apart, but directly after that tragic event he still professed to be supporting her)
She made Medea look like an amateur. There is nothing wrong with hating a person like that.
So, as I said, it is a damn hard thing to do. Should we even bother to try? I think that is a personal question, and each person has to decide for themselves.
Not according to what you just said. The Jesus of the NT never said "Ya know what would be pleasant to do, I mean if you feel like it, if you think it's a good idea?" No, he said follow my orders or rot in hell. There was no. do unto others because you have respect for them. It was "love one another"--OR ELSE BURN BABY!
Using a car purchase as an example is a bad idea. If you don't check out the car you can kill yourself by hitting a tree when the wheel bearing gives and you go in the ditch (happened to a friend of mine). Unless you are a fanatical follower, or are invaded by fanatical followers of another religion (sect, denom, etc) religion never killed anyone (lucky for the Witnesses, hmm?)
Somebody has not been reading her world history. The Witnesses were marched into the gas clambers hand in had with the Jews.
Are you actually saying that your choice of a belief system is of less importance to you that the purchase of an appliance that you will keep a few years at best?
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement.
I was shocked when I finally became, what is unflatteringly referred to as, "old" that I actually became "wise". I'll let you in on the big secret. It turns out that all "wisdom" is, is having made a shit load of mistakes in your life and remembering what they were.
I don't see how faith could be taken as a positive thing, it is simply a thing that I was born into.
This is odd, because people who are raised in Atheist households lack this "faith" gene. Were you "born" with it or was your "brain washed" (like the rest of us) since you were in the cradle?
I can conclude with a reasonable certainty that there is no cheese in our part of space. If religion were this easy to disprove to people, well, this thread quite simply would not exist, don't you agree?
Yes I do, that is the very thing that I find so fascinating about this subject. With the exception of the mentally impaired everyone uses some degree of Skepticism and the scientific method in all aspects of their lives. Just as you did when considering the supposition that the moon is constructed from dairy products. You rejected it because of lack of evidence to support it.
BUT--it comes to the topic of god and all logic stops.
The supposition that there is an invisible superman who can do all sorts of magic things is simply accepted with not one shred of evidence required.
There are people who apply this same criteria of "faith" to other aspects of their everyday lives and are judged to be insane for doing so. And yet we find honored scholars applying this same mad lack of discernment to the subject of god.
Doesn't change the fact that I want my own little fairy tale to be possible. And I will figure it out for myself in the end.
It sounds like you already have. You've just not yet brought it to the forefront of your mind.
As abhorrent as {slavery} is to us now, I think modern society is unique in this aspect, and perhaps this should be taken into account? (and there are those rules regarding the treatment of slaves and bondservants in the OT,
Deuteronomy I believe. For Jim's info)
Many modern people like to rewrite their history. I know we Irish do--we're all descended from kings ya know.
Christians are no acceptation. From it's very beginnings in the early fourth century and for the following one thousand five hundred years the Christian church did everything it could to encourage and foster the institution of slavery. It did to such a degree that for a thousand years the majority of the population of Europe were serfs. Serfdom is a lose form of slavery that is necessary for administrative purposes when you own such vast numbers of people.
At no time in it's history was it the aim of the Christian church to better the lives of it's |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
