Seasonal religion discussion

[CWSmith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

I don't know enough to say much of anything about gods with any confidence at all. My point is that we do know enough to say quite objectively that miracle tales are simply not reliable evidence of anything. If the biblical miracle stories came from the tradition of some religion in Kazakhstan that you'd just heard of last month, you'd laugh at them. Believe them if you like, that's fine, but don't try to pretend that they're good evidence supporting your faith.

Then I'll go out on a limb and say that the miracles that Jesus performed were first of all for the benefit of those who witnessed them. There are important parallels to keep in mind ("lamb of God" really means something, and raising the dead is a preview of Easter), but what those miracles really describe is the conversion and belief of those who witnessed them.

We don't have it quite so easy. While many of us think that our prayers are answered (and I had a BIG one answered two years ago), the real search for God is a difficult examination of truth for a modern human. It isn't easy and I don't think it is meant to be. Some of the comments made here are really just restatements of "If God exists, why doesn't he show himself?" I think the answer to that question is that He isn't as interested in having us worship Him in the Old Testament sense as he is in having us understand Him. He wants us to learn to forgive. He wants us to learn compassion. This is the path that leads us to discovering God. No flash. No drama. Just fundamental truth.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

He wants us to learn to forgive. He wants us to learn compassion.

I'm in favor of that.

[WI-Tom]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

The best "miracle" in the Bible is the feeding of the 5,000. I always understood it this way:

Jesus fed the crowd with some loaves and 2 small fish, and had stuff left over. How?

By shaming the crowd into sharing what they already had, but were keeping to themselves. The disciples went around collecting from everyone who had food, and then shared it out amongst the crowd. Who discovered that there had always been enough for everyone. The problem was one of equitable distribution.

As it still is, mostly. That's the most relevant "miracle" for our times.

Tom

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

He wants us to learn to forgive. He wants us to learn compassion. T

Yep, the Golden Rule, even we Atheists strive to live by that.

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Sorry if that seemed strange; I'll try to be clearer.

I think we're all aware of your view that someone's beliefs should not be 'forced onto others' by way of law.

Several posters have responded with the point that all law arises from belief about one thing or another. And further, only parliament's "belief" (to use your term) - not "someone's" - can enact law.

That is, a majority of properly elected members must agree with a "belief" for it to become law. And to refute the fairness of this is to reject the democratic principle.

My post was asking that you either present a contrary argument to those of us posters who took the time to respond, or concede it, rather than just ignore it, so that the discussion can resume from a new starting point.

If you've done that and I've missed it, then I apologise and ask that you point me to it or repeat it. I'd be keen to read it.




Sent from my MI MAX 3 using Tapatalk

That's all true, but we are currently living where elected majorities seem to be Christians and are passing laws based upon their faith rather than our constitution.

They talk about less government, but pass laws diminishing individual rights and putting more government control into our lives.

The best example of this is abortion. Vaccine debate is another example. Vaccine mandates are not new, and are based upon the best science available at the time. Mandated vaccines have a long history of eliminating Polio, small pox, etc...

Seems to me the constitution would allow the pregnant woman to make her own decisions. Why would the government force her to have the child, if not for religious reasons, and why the concern for the fetus, but no concern for children getting shot?

We now have a supreme court that, IMO, is basing decisions on their religious beliefs rather than our constitution, and that's simply not good for the nation.

One of the ten commandments is something about not bearing false witness, yet these 'Christians' lie to us. Men passing laws over women's bodies, and over medical advise, does not sit well with me.

I knew a couple who were looking forward to their third child. Doctor found a problem. Bottom line was that he could not promise both the mom and the child would survive childbirth. They made a choice; save the mom.

Today's Republicans would not allow them to make that decision and instead of two children having two parents, the dad would be left with three children and a dead spouse.

Tell me how this is not religious based lawmaking? Tell me how promising less government, then inserting government into a woman's uterus isn't bearing false witness.

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Consider that one of the most broadly used models of therapy for people with mental illnesses who are at a high risk of suicide (e.g. folks diagnosed with borderline personality disorder) is Dialectical Behavior Therapy, or DBT. Clinically, it's the model which best helps people stay alive, and not incidentally build a life they consider worth staying alive in.

The person who developed it out of a few predecessor models (cognitive Behavior therapy, for one) found that empirically, people get better when they hold a dialectic in tension: radical acceptance of their present situation, which means a non-judgmental acknowledgement, not beating oneself up with self loathing. And pairing that with a sincere desire for change. Either part of tgat dialectic alone didn't get people improving, didn't keep people alive. Together, the numbers work.

It's expressly NOT religious. It's empirically driven, empirically validated psychological therapy.

It's also, as it happens, the result of the originator's own personal journey, deeply informed by her Christian faith. As in, she'd not have developed this model without those influences.

In that, there's significant overlap with Bill, and the 12 step origin story. For all that there's no "higher power" language in DBT.

[Durnik]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Oh, no doubt. I was giving the long view, from about 20,000 feet. Through light clouds. Maybe some fog, too.

ok, (as an analogy for all of us) that's good!

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Two quite different things. Ideas people hold can have consequences. Constantine's conversion had enormous consequences. The early Christians who wrote the gospels probably believed sincerely that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, and they convinced a lot of people and founded a religion. But that has little to do with whether these things are actually true; Christianity became the state religion of the empire whether or not what Constantine's reported to have seen in the sky was real, and Christianity is very real whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. People believe in all sorts of illusory things, and their belief has real effects, not at all diminished by the illusions.

What a person believes is entirely up to, and the right of, that person. Accepting that does not mean that what that person believes is true. People often act based upon their beliefs, and that makes what they believe important. It doesn't matter if what they believe is true or not.

If we take this out of the religious circle and simply look at 'news'. There are people who, based upon where they got their news, believe the 2020 election was stolen; that there was massive fraud. People who believed this stormed the Capital. Beliefs can be more important than facts.

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Then I'll go out on a limb and say that the miracles that Jesus performed were first of all for the benefit of those who witnessed them. There are important parallels to keep in mind ("lamb of God" really means something, and raising the dead is a preview of Easter), but what those miracles really describe is the conversion and belief of those who witnessed them.

We don't have it quite so easy. While many of us think that our prayers are answered (and I had a BIG one answered two years ago), the real search for God is a difficult examination of truth for a modern human. It isn't easy and I don't think it is meant to be. Some of the comments made here are really just restatements of "If God exists, why doesn't he show himself?" I think the answer to that question is that He isn't as interested in having us worship Him in the Old Testament sense as he is in having us understand Him. He wants us to learn to forgive. He wants us to learn compassion. This is the path that leads us to discovering God. No flash. No drama. Just fundamental truth.

Thinking is not knowing.

Seems to me the very least God could/would do is keep people safe inside a house of worship. He does not.

That, to my mind, makes him irrelevant.

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Thinking is not knowing.

Seems to me the very least God could/would do is keep people safe inside a house of worship. He does not.

That, to my mind, makes him irrelevant.

So you've said.

Might I suggest that God really isn't functionally an AR-15? Neither in the NRA's framing, nor that of reasonable-gun-control advocates? And never intended to be either?

Why is it that this is, for you, where belief or disbelief or relevance hinges?

[Kevin T]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

As to the question of miracles and the reality that most of the info about the "miracles" were written at least several decades after the alleged events took place, is it not possible that the writers were acting as "Tout men" in order to sell the product, in this case the religion of Christianity.

Further, would it not also be possible that these bronze age "fabulists", and I use the term cautiously, would be attempting to impress and dazzle a less than educated populace in order to control and extract revenue, servitude, construction of facilities all with the "promise" of a better life in the "next" life?

Take raising the dead. In our lifetimes or maybe just a bit before there was the literal term "dead drunk" where an individual was so inebriated they were thought to be dead and were sometimes buried prematurely. This gave rise to that other well known term; "an Irish wake" where the "deceased" was laid out in the living room of a home for at least 3 days to ensure that they were in fact dead.

In Mexico there's the custom of installing a bell above a coffin buried in the ground with a string running through the ground and into the coffin in case the "deceased" woke up so they could ring the bell in order to escape the grave.

Would it not be a great parlor trick if a historical figure such as Jesus or anyone else for that matter came upon a "dead drunk" individual, recognized the condition and timed a bit of sleight of hand with a smelling salts equivalent or they simply had an understanding as to when the individual was likely to "come to their senses" and they miraculously "raised" the individual from the dead?

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Why is it that this is, for you, where belief or disbelief or relevance hinges?

You're being too hard on John in this case. What he keeps bringing up is a version of the 'problem of evil', which wiser people than any of us have been struggling with for millennia.

Probably the classic version is Hume paraphrasing Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” It's a very real problem with the idea of a loving omnipotent God.

[CWSmith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Thinking is not knowing.

No, but it's always good to think. Repeating the same ideas over and over gets you nowhere.

[stromborg]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

You folks are having a very Christian-centric discussion, there is a wide range of other gods/goddesses/higher powers followed on this planet. There is a bit of narcissism involved in assuming you've picked the right one(s).

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

You're being too hard on John in this case. What he keeps bringing up is a version of the 'problem of evil', which wiser people than any of us have been struggling with for millennia.

Probably the classic version is Hume paraphrasing Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” It's a very real problem with the idea of a loving omnipotent God.

Perhaps I'm being too hard on John - sorry good sir. What you're reading here is frustration.

John's worded the "theodicy problem" almost verbatim the same way more times than I can remember. I don't blame him for not being convinced by any of the various tacks a range of people have taken to offer a response, but let's be clear here. There have been multiple direct responses to John, using different framing, different analogies, different emphases.

It's entirely legit if for John (and anyone else!) those somewhat divergent approaches cut no more ice than any which have gone before. But if we're having a conversation, there's got to be some visible evidence of engagement with what participants say. Or it isn't a conversation.