Do you believe in God? - Page 7 - Religion, God, and Theology

This! Thank you for proving that Aaron's use of "snarky" was correct. Jesus was heaping scorn on those whom he referred to as a "brood of vipers."

Scorn: the feeling that someone is worthless or despicable. How does this jibe with I knew you and loved you before you were born, god is love, you are precious in the eyes of god, etc? Or no problem with that in this apocryphal story?

Quote

10-26-2020 , 12:52 AM

#153

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Your

Scary. I even noticed that typo but didn't feel like changing it. There is another one in there ... you didn't notice? I mean it's important, you know. Go proofread the internet while evading the substantive material. So LOL.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 01:22 AM

#154

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

Scorn: the feeling that someone is worthless or despicable.

Ahhhh... the dictionary game. Take a commonly used word with many senses and definitions and object because you think you've found one possible definition that doesn't seem to fit the situation. (Not that this sense doesn't work. God is pretty disgusted with humans a lot, especially in the Old Testament.)

Quote

10-26-2020 , 07:30 AM

#155

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

I didn't notice any important material. As an old atheist I didn't feel the need to look closely. Angry atheists pretty much all write exactly the same old arguments.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 04:46 PM

#156

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by LtUaE42

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

Thanks. Will give them a read this week.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 04:50 PM

#157

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

I didn't notice any important material. As an old atheist I didn't feel the need to look closely. Angry atheists pretty much all write exactly the same old arguments.

This!!

Atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris basically write books that are bad imitations of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Edit: The Atheist Industrial Complex

Quote

10-26-2020 , 04:56 PM

#158

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Doug Wilson wrote a superb little book titled Letter from a Christian Citizen, which was a response to Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 06:25 PM

#159

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,902

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Until then, could you please produce what you consider to be a persuasive deductive argument that has as its conclusion: "Killing human babies for fun is always morally wrong?" Thanks.

Going back to this.. I just realized something. You are unable to discern that killing babies is wrong because that would be equivalent to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do I have that right?

In other words, killing is wrong because God communicated that to Moses and not because of your own feelings. Or would you say it’s both? Can you say it’s both without feeling like you committed the original sin?

Quote

10-26-2020 , 06:50 PM

#160

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Well I hope he was disgusted ... that seems to be the loving rationale for millions of murders. Actions are right and wrong in themselves and not so much according to who they come from. So if I am disgusted with some people, and I kill them, or command them to be killed, that's not really too cool. In fact it's probably immoral and illegal. But to say that it's okay - that ANYTHING is okay - if it's in my ancient "holy" book, is pretty much the definition of true believer and indoctrination.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 07:37 PM

#161

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,067

Surprise. Nobody wins the debate.

Is having an open mind good or bad?

I see religion as a system of morality and attempted accounting for origins. I see most all of them as this, other than a few of the extremely cynical ones that are pretty much pure opportunism.

Ancient man and civilizations conjure them up by the truckloads. One of the best impulses inherent in religion is that of giving thanks. Gratitude is a beautiful and noble sentiment. The thing is, superstitious ancient man did not know who or what to give thanks to.

So they try Anubis, Isis, Osiris, Ra, the Emperor, Odin, Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Allah, the Pharaoh, Yahweh, Thor, Venus, Brahma, The Great Spirit ... etc. etc. Many of the impulses behind religion are good: seeking understanding, fellowship, wanting to be good, giving gratitude. But they are making up who they are giving it to, kind of creating a character ... which doesn't counterfeit the religion at all, but merely makes it a subset of the human desire to find meaning, understanding, morality, etc.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 07:48 PM

#162

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,902

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

Your perspective is not profound enough to dictate to people. We don’t know what we don’t know, but you should at least give more consideration to the possibility that you don’t know enough still. That will help open you up to dialogue.

I say this with the awareness that I am dictating to you, but I am much more careful than you, based on what you have shown here.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 09:13 PM

#163

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

This!!

Atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris basically write books that are bad imitations of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Edit: The Atheist Industrial Complex

There unfortunately really isn't that much to say on either side of the debate. Yet people feel the need to debate. Better than doing something productive, I guess.

Quote

10-26-2020 , 10:42 PM

#164

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig1120

FellaGaga pretty much does a stream-of-consciousness monologue. He isn't interested in dialogue, if you look at his posting career in this Forum.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 05:13 AM

#165

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,067

Who the frig am I dictating to when I say, "I see religion as ..." Get a grip with who is dictating.

Thesis:

When one feels a profound gratitude and appreciation toward life ... they often personify it and create a god to be grateful to and worship.

When one feels a desire to abdicate agency in the moral realm ... they often personify some ultimate morality into a god (and then call the ultimate authority of this fictional creation "objective"). For god's sake.

When one seeks origins and meaning in the face of mystery and they can't tolerate uncertainty ... they often personify it into a god and even become a fundamentalist for some religion or another.

* I think there is a pattern in the history of mankind. An indisputable one.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 09:02 AM

#166

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

Thesis:

When one feels a profound gratitude and appreciation toward life ... they often personify it and create a god to be grateful to and worship.

Yes, they often do that.

Quote:

When one feels a desire to abdicate agency in the moral realm ... they often personify some ultimate morality into a god (and then call the ultimate authority of this fictional creation "objective"). For god's sake.

Yes, they often do that.

Quote:

When one seeks origins and meaning in the face of mystery and they can't tolerate uncertainty ... they often personify it into a god and even become a fundamentalist for some religion or another.

Yes, they often do that.

The above thesis, even though valid, does not negate the thesis that Christianity (or Islam, or Jaineism, or Hinduism, etc.) might also be true.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 11:37 AM

#167

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Your thesis, even though valid, does not negate the thesis that Christianity (or Islam, or Jaineism, or Hinduism, etc.) might also be true.

Most serious thinkers understand that it is possible to believe something that is true for a bad reason.

That thesis isn't especially novel or interesting.*

*In my opinion.

Last edited by lagtight; 10-27-2020 at 11:41 AM. Reason: Kinda edited the whole post

Quote

10-27-2020 , 06:04 PM

#168

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

So is it crippling to over rely on science but not on superstition/myth? That's good. Nice try. Myth is indeed a valuable tool, and pre-science it was the main tool. But here you are 2000 years later still using it as your main tool.

Joseph Campbell was a great mythologist, and was closer to being a god than these Bible characters.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: When man had eaten of the fruit of the first tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he is said to have been expelled from the garden. He had already expelled himself from the garden. The garden is the place of unity, nonduality, nonduality of male and female, nonduality of man and God, nonduality of good and evil. You eat the duality, and you’re on the way out. So this tree of the nonduality, is the tree of the exit.

Now, the tree of coming back to the garden is the tree of immortal life. Where you know that “I and the father are one.” And the two that seem to become one again. And this is exactly the tree under which the Buddha sits.

BILL MOYERS: The tree of wisdom?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: The tree of immortal life, of the knowledge of immortal life. And the Buddha under his tree, and Christ hanging on his tree are the same image. They are the same image. The one who has died to the flesh and been reborn in the spirit. This is an essential experience of any mystical realization; you die to your flesh and are born to your spirit. You identify yourself with the consciousness and life of which your body is but the vehicle. You die to the vehicle and become identified in your consciousness with that of which the vehicle is the carrier, do you understand me? And that is the god.

That doesn't sound scientific at all. And sounds completely contrary to your thesis:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

Thesis:

When one feels a profound gratitude and appreciation toward life ... they often personify it and create a god to be grateful to and worship.

When one feels a desire to abdicate agency in the moral realm ... they often personify some ultimate morality into a god (and then call the ultimate authority of this fictional creation "objective"). For god's sake.

When one seeks origins and meaning in the face of mystery and they can't tolerate uncertainty ... they often personify it into a god and even become a fundamentalist for some religion or another.

* I think there is a pattern in the history of mankind. An indisputable one.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 06:38 PM

#169

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,902

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: When man had eaten of the fruit of the first tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he is said to have been expelled from the garden. He had already expelled himself from the garden. The garden is the place of unity, nonduality, nonduality of male and female, nonduality of man and God, nonduality of good and evil. You eat the duality, and you’re on the way out. So this tree of the nonduality, is the tree of the exit.

Now, the tree of coming back to the garden is the tree of immortal life. Where you know that “I and the father are one.” And the two that seem to become one again. And this is exactly the tree under which the Buddha sits.

BILL MOYERS: The tree of wisdom?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: The tree of immortal life, of the knowledge of immortal life. And the Buddha under his tree, and Christ hanging on his tree are the same image. They are the same image. The one who has died to the flesh and been reborn in the spirit. This is an essential experience of any mystical realization; you die to your flesh and are born to your spirit. You identify yourself with the consciousness and life of which your body is but the vehicle. You die to the vehicle and become identified in your consciousness with that of which the vehicle is the carrier, do you understand me? And that is the god.

That doesn't sound scientific at all. And sounds completely contrary to your thesis:

I had never seen this quote from Campbell. His interpretation is pretty good and his instinct is right in that we have not made the full truth of that story known to ourselves. The problem for his interpretation is the question of why would you eat from the tree of knowledge and voluntarily expel yourself from unity in the first place.

There is a fracturing that happens in the Garden prior to the full split brought about by eating the forbidden fruit. It is symbolized by Eve separating from Adam by his rib.

This story is full of scandal and trauma. However, it needs to be understood correctly because the Christ story sits on top of the Adam story and the Son of Man story sits on top of the Christ story. Life is trying to help us get this story right through some of our modern day stories.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 06:47 PM

#170

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Yes, they often do that.

Yes, they often do that.

Yes, they often do that.

The above thesis, even though valid, does not negate the thesis that Christianity (or Islam, or Jaineism, or Hinduism, etc.) might also be true.

And so, since these are psychological and very natural explanations for religion, we are left with the possibility that religion could be either naturally or supernaturally caused. Since everything else under the sun is natural, and there is a natural explanation here, to go to supernatural isn't too realistic. Is it? I"m glad you candidly answered all that. It completely explains religion without resorting to the supernatural. So now it would be like trying to explain the cosmos, once understanding classical mechanics of it ... to then add on as part of your explanation ... but there is still a giant turtle on which the earth rests.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 07:05 PM

#171

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: When man had eaten of the fruit of the first tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he is said to have been expelled from the garden. He had already expelled himself from the garden. The garden is the place of unity, nonduality, nonduality of male and female, nonduality of man and God, nonduality of good and evil. You eat the duality, and you’re on the way out. So this tree of the nonduality, is the tree of the exit.

Now, the tree of coming back to the garden is the tree of immortal life. Where you know that “I and the father are one.” And the two that seem to become one again. And this is exactly the tree under which the Buddha sits.

BILL MOYERS: The tree of wisdom?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: The tree of immortal life, of the knowledge of immortal life. And the Buddha under his tree, and Christ hanging on his tree are the same image. They are the same image. The one who has died to the flesh and been reborn in the spirit. This is an essential experience of any mystical realization; you die to your flesh and are born to your spirit. You identify yourself with the consciousness and life of which your body is but the vehicle. You die to the vehicle and become identified in your consciousness with that of which the vehicle is the carrier, do you understand me? And that is the god.

That doesn't sound scientific at all. And sounds completely contrary to your thesis:

He was doing comparative mythology studies and taking their frame of reference in delineating them ... not practicing them as a religion.

Quote

10-27-2020 , 08:18 PM

#172

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

And so, since these are psychological and very natural explanations for religion, we are left with the possibility that religion could be either naturally or supernaturally caused.

Quite so.

Quote:

Since everything else under the sun is natural...

Not necessarily. I would argue (and actually have argued), that the Laws of Logic are not "natural." The Laws of Logic are immaterial, universal and unchanging. Natural things are local, change and are material.

Quote:

...and there is a natural explanation here, to go to supernatural isn't too realistic. Is it?

It is actually quite realistic.

Quote:

I"m glad you candidly answered all that. It completely explains religion without resorting to the supernatural.

Indeed, you have provided a possible explanation. But even the concept explanation is not found in nature.

Quote:

So now it would be like trying to explain the cosmos, once understanding classical mechanics of it ... to then add on as part of your explanation ... but there is still a giant turtle on which the earth rests.

No Turtle Wax required.

Quote

10-28-2020 , 04:41 AM

#173

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig1120

My read is that the knowledge of good and evil is analogous to the knowledge of existence and non-existence (being and non-being). The error (serpent) is just because whatever we can conceive of as existing we can also conceive of it not existing doesn't mean we can have knowledge of both or that both have power. That is, we can have knowledge of that which is or being but not that which is not or non-being. And while being can act in a causal sense, non-being certainly can't. So thinking dualistically or in terms of opposites whereby the existence of a positive entails the possible existence of a negative causes us to see as real the existence of death and evil when only life and the good are real. Like Campbell said, you eat the duality, and you're on the way out (of paradise/heaven). As to why the Fall, I think that comes from thinking about existence itself in the same manner as we think of things in existence, or life itself in the same manner as we think of living things.

Quote

10-28-2020 , 04:49 AM

#174

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52

He was doing comparative mythology studies and taking their frame of reference in delineating them ... not practicing them as a religion.

I didn't say he was practicing them as a religion. But to suggest that he didn't think there's a knowable or experience-able transcendental aspect or realm to existence and that myth only pointed towards your thesis seems pretty far off the mark. But I don't know what his metaphysical beliefs were; he's near a pantheist as far as I can tell. Obviously, he didn't care much for literal readings or the personalization of It but he certainly thought there was something - probably metaphysical but at the very least phenomenological - to It that myth is instrumental in conveying. In other words, I doubt he'd agree with your delimitation of myth to psychological coping or whatever.

Quote

10-28-2020 , 03:59 PM

#175

craig1120

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,902

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

I agree that what you are saying — a step towards death awareness and duality — is part of it. There is a lot happening in this story.

There are two distinct versions of the story. One is more top-down, group oriented, and less dangerous but with less potential. That’s the conventional way the story is understood in the Bible. Jesus taught to this version of the story to the masses.

The other version of the story he taught to his inner circle, or at least he tried to while still being vague. The Gospel of Thomas (which was excluded from the Bible, buried, and dug up decades ago) is where to find this teaching.

Like I said, the story of Adam/Christ/Son of Man sit on top of each other but in a circle. We will act out some version or variation of the Adam story; it is unavoidable. Which version we embody will determine how we interact with the other two stories. These stories interlink to the patterns of human consciousness. Our quality of life is based on living out the right patterns.

Quote

Page 7 of 69

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27 57

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 69

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27 57

Last