Bible Accuracy Discussion

Owen

Thanks for listening BrianCalgary, and for providing an open Forum. Before I waste my little fingers by typing a long post, I do wish to re-iterate that I applaud the Bible's teachings of morals, righteousness, and self worth. It's the other stuff I have a problem with. Let's leave Genesis, and people's literal interpreration of that to one side for a moment. And let's not try to analyse the entire book either, I'm sure it's been done ad nauseum, and would almost double the size of boards' database. I would argue that many events in the Bible appear irrational, and illogical.

The first I wish to argue, is the virgin birth miracle. There are many many examples, but consider Mithraism, a Persian religion predating Christianity by centuries. Mithra, the savior of the Mithraic religion and a god who took human form, was born of a virgin; he belonged to the holy trinity and was a link between heaven and Earth; and he ascended into heaven after his death. His followers believed in heaven and hell, looked forward to a day of judgment, and referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World." They also practiced baptism (for purification purposes) and ritual cannibalism—the eating of bread and the drinking of wine to symbolize the eating and drinking of the god’s body and blood. Given all this, Mithra’s birthday should come as no surprise: December 25th; this event was, of course, celebrated by Mithra’s followers at midnight.

The second is the miracle of the Ark. Do you truly believe God wiped everything on earth out in a great flood? Where did all the water go? Do you believe Noah was 600? Do you truly believe a ship, crafted with hand tools, and basic engineering principles could be vast enough to support every form of life on earth, with sanitation needs, dietary requirements, and safe isolation to prevent a food chain developing on board? And the icing on the cake, do you believe a rainbow is a covenant with God?

The need for a belief in God comes from an individual's inability to be able to take responsibility for their own actions. When we are children, we can run to our Parent's if we have done something bad, or if we feel down. Having an imaginary friend, or God, is a substitute for this behavioural pattern. Instead of feeling down, we have conversations with God, who doesn't talk back. The only difference I can see between this, and little Mary talking to Booboo her imaginary friend, is that one is accepted, and the other isn't. When someone does something bad to us as children, we ask our Parents for resolution and we are told that bad people always get their comeuppance. When we grow up, we still crave this status quo. We can call it Karma, or we can call it Heaven and Hell, but at the end of the day, we're still looking for a paper thin explanation as to why the world is sometimes cruel, and how in the end bad people will be punished by some force. It's a bit convenient, isn't it?

The need for a belief in Eternal Life comes from humanity's inability to accept the fragility of it's existence. Anyone I've spoken to on the subject of Eternal Life pretty much has the same response "There has to be something more". Why? Why does there have to be something more? We're no different to plants. We grow, we eat, we reproduce, and we die. Our offspring carry on the species. Isn't it just the littlest bit convenient that we'll all go to Heaven, live happily ever after with all our friends and family?

The concept of a soul also bothers me. The idea of a soul has been around as long as humanity itself, but was conceived when man had NO scientific ability, and NO understanding of the Universe. Now that we have catalogued the interior of the Human Body, there has been no soul identified. No part of the body that can store consciousness, memory and form. Yet hundreds and hundreds of people believe in Souls, Eternal Life, God, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Saul's wife turning to salt, and talking shrubbery.

Why? Because quite simply, we brainwash our Children. We condition them, just like Pavlov's Dog, to recite the same prayers, to learn the story of Zacchaus, of Lazerus, of Jesus, and to believe them as truths. As facts. Based on a book, written by uneducated men, 2000 years ago in times of persecution when they needed something OTT to believe in to give them the willpower to survive.

In order for a Religion, any Religion, to be honest with itself, it should not under any circumstances brainwash children into it's beliefs. Children should be left as blank canvases. Evolution (A concept that can be proven), the Big Bang (Which can also be observed), knowledge of the Universe (Proven facts) should be taught in School, along with the unproven, yet important moral values that Religion imparts. Then, when the child is old enough, say 15/16, they should be able to choose a Religion, based on all their education, scientific and spiritual, or choose to remain without any Religion at all.

I could go on for hours on this stuff, but as a former Catholic, and someone who was roped into the Legion of Mary for a few years, I feel I've grown out of it. I truly hope others out there won't blindly follow the psychological conditioning they have been subject to, but will question everything. Analyse everything. If there is a God out there, that's what she would want. And if there is a God out there, surely, people would come to that conclusion all on their own without any external influence.

Owen

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'd suggest starting a new thread and labelling it as such.

Ack, missed this line. Sorry Brian.

Fanny Cradock

ned78 wrote:

The first I wish to argue, is the virgin birth miracle. There are many many examples, but consider Mithraism, a Persian religion predating Christianity by centuries. Mithra, the savior of the Mithraic religion and a god who took human form, was born of a virgin; he belonged to the holy trinity and was a link between heaven and Earth; and he ascended into heaven after his death. His followers believed in heaven and hell, looked forward to a day of judgment, and referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World." They also practiced baptism (for purification purposes) and ritual cannibalism—the eating of bread and the drinking of wine to symbolize the eating and drinking of the god’s body and blood. Given all this, Mithra’s birthday should come as no surprise: December 25th; this event was, of course, celebrated by Mithra’s followers at midnight.

Woo, long post! I'm tired, so I will keep it short. Admittedly, I know very little of Mithraism, but it is argued by some that the Gospels (dated before c.100AD) pre-dated the foundation of this religion (sometime after c.100AD).

BrianCalgary

ned78 wrote:

Ack, missed this line. Sorry Brian.

Don't sweat it. Can someone move neds post to a new thread. I don't know how to do it.

Thanks:D

Ciaran500

BrianCalgary wrote:

Don't sweat it. Can someone move neds post to a new thread. I don't know how to do it.

Thanks:D

You should be able to do it by just selecting the post and then select move post. Should give you the option to start a new thread on the next page.

BrianCalgary

Ciaran500 wrote:

You should be able to do it by just selecting the post and then select move post. Should give you the option to start a new thread on the next page.

Ta ciaran.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Woo, long post! I'm tired, so I will keep it short. Admittedly, I know very little of Mithraism, but it is argued by some that the Gospels (dated before c.100AD) pre-dated the foundation of this religion (sometime after c.100AD).

The earliest material evidence of Mithraism is from about 71-72 CE, by which time it seems to have been reasonably widespead in the legions. The evidence in question is Mithraic dedications by legionaries returning from Parthia and Palestine.

The standard form of Mithraic relief, on the other hand, dates from about 200BCE.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Owen

I've re-read my post, and I've to apologise now if it seems confrontational. I wrote it all in one stream of consciousness, and didn't take the considerations of others into account. So apologies if it seems like I'm deliberately trying to insult members of the Catholic church/Christians - that's the last thing I'd want.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

The earliest material evidence of Mithraism is from about 71-72 CE, by which time it seems to have been reasonably widespead in the legions. The evidence in question is Mithraic dedications by legionaries returning from Parthia and Palestine.

The standard form of Mithraic relief, on the other hand, dates from about 200BCE.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hello Scofflaw,

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the cult – maybe someone can back me up here - but as far as I can see the evidence supporting any exact dates is at best sketchy. However, despite this, you give exacting dates - 71to72 AD. I really don’t see how you can pinpoint a time with any certainty when the experts can’t manage to agree amongst themselves.

For arguments sake, even if I was to accept that this cult did predate the Gospels – and there are plenty who would disagree – I again can’t see how, given the dates you stated, i.e. after Christ, it could be considered anything but a clone of Christianity.

Would you be able to expand on your final statement “The standard form of Mithraic relief, on the other hand, dates from about 200BCE”? I’m not familiar with this, so any info you have would be appreciated.

Owen

Fanny Cradock wrote:

For arguments sake, even if I was to accept that this cult did predate the Gospels – and there are plenty who would disagree – I again can’t see how, given the dates you stated, i.e. after Christ, it could be considered anything but a clone of Christianity.

Your use of the word Cult indicates that you have no respect for any other beliefs other than your own.

You also seem to forget your Eygptian mythology - predating Catholicism for many many years - whereby Horus, was born of the virgin Isis in a cave/manger. Horus was the protector of men against the powers of darkness, a saviour for want of a better word. Horus' birth was announced by a star in the East. Horus walked on water, and was interchangeable with his past, and future father, Osiris. He has 12 disciples, and before his death appeared to them 'transfigured on the mount'. And in case this isn't looking similar enough, Horus was crucified between two thieves, and buried in a tomb, where he was resurrected.

What's even more interesting, is that the Jesus story, is shared by so many religions, 12 disciples, crucifiction, dying, ressurection, births in caves which were mysteriously illuminated by star or otherwise, and even in one case, being presented with Gold, Francincense, and Myhrr. Here's the list of names : Krishna, Bacchus, Horus, Tammuz, Zarathustra, Mithras, Budda, Lao Zi, Attis and Heracles.

To the eyes of most Athiests, Catholicism is nothing but a popular Cult.

bubonicus

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Ned you seem to be asking Christians to explain the miracles in the bible or just to dismiss them.

But Christianity is based on believing in the miracles of the bible otherwise there would be no faith.

So it's their faith, let them have it.

mickoneill30

Off topic I think but might be interesting for you ned78. Have you read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? I'm only half way through it but it's fascinating. Not one for the believers though (probably).
One great line that I remember from it is (and I'm going from memory here so it's probably wrong)
When asked why I'm an athiest I reply I just believe in ONE fewer god than you do.

Owen

bubonicus wrote:

So it's their faith, let them have it.

For the record, I was asked to start this thread. I just wanted to see in another thread if most Catholics & Christians are willing to follow the sheep mentality, or would they judge all aspects of their faith critically? Ideally, if they're stoic, they'll come to a happy conclusion (Happy from their own perspective), or perhaps they'll come to another conclusion.

Either way, as an Athiest looking in, and as a former Catholic, I can't fathom an individual's inability to question the world around them. If there is a God, didn't she give you free will for a reason?

bubonicus

ned78 wrote:

Either way, as an Athiest looking in, and as a former Catholic, I can't fathom an individual's inability to question the world around them. If there is a God, didn't she give you free will for a reason?

you not been able to fathom something is your right, the same way a christian has the right to believe what they want.

For the record i'm not a christian. But you are free Ned, move on.

Owen

bubonicus wrote:

you not been able to fathom something is your right, the same way a christian has the right to believe what they want.

I'm not questioning an individual's rights - I uphold a person's freedom to believe in God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all. What I am asking, is as I've stated before, is are people happy to be Sheep, or do they have the ability to question the world around them?

bubonicus

ned78 wrote:

I'm not questioning an individual's rights - I uphold a person's freedom to believe in God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all. What I am asking, is as I've stated before, is are people happy to be Sheep, or do they have the ability to question the world around them?

I understand Ned. And too answer your question. I think people just don't care. They are too preoccupied with what Paris Hilton is doing rather than the meaning of life.

I think you are looking for hope in humanity. I think you will be greatly disappointed.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the cult – maybe someone can back me up here - but as far as I can see the evidence supporting any exact dates is at best sketchy. However, despite this, you give exacting dates - 71to72 AD. I really don’t see how you can pinpoint a time with any certainty when the experts can’t manage to agree amongst themselves.

Hmm. While there is controversy over the origins of Mithraism, it isn't about those dates. The dedications in question are by the XV Apollinaris legion on its return to base in Carnuntum after the capture of Jerusalem. Movement dates for the legions are very well-established.

The unsettled aspect of the origins of Mithraism is how long before this date it originated, and where. The standard origin theory is that of Cumont - that Mithraism originated as a variant or subcult of Zoroastrianism, and was imported back from the Eastern provinces.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

For arguments sake, even if I was to accept that this cult did predate the Gospels – and there are plenty who would disagree – I again can’t see how, given the dates you stated, i.e. after Christ, it could be considered anything but a clone of Christianity.

Well, I think you have little choice, really. As to the idea that, postdating Christ, it must be a clone of Christianity - no, that's a silly idea. First, Mithraism wasn't anything like Christianity. It was a male-only, lodge-based, sacrificial mystery religion with no written texts. Structurally, it was much more like Masonry than Christianity. Second, of course, if your only criterion for deciding that it must be derivative from Christianity is post-dating Christ, that's an incredibly weak argument that applies, most obviously, to Islam (and Scientology, of course).

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Would you be able to expand on your final statement “The standard form of Mithraic relief, on the other hand, dates from about 200BCE”? I’m not familiar with this, so any info you have would be appreciated.

I'll see what I can dig up, but it's a reference to the standard portrayal of Mithra at the bull sacrifice - the tauroctony.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kelly1

ned78 wrote:

I'm not questioning an individual's rights - I uphold a person's freedom to believe in God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all. What I am asking, is as I've stated before, is are people happy to be Sheep, or do they have the ability to question the world around them?

Ned, I'm skeptical by nature and I question a lot of things so I don't consider myself to be a sheep. Within the sphere of religion you have to be very skeptical because there are so many lies being told. There are so many false religions, it's no wonder people are skeptical/cynical.

I've investigated lots of religions and I've finally come to the conclusion that the Catholic faith is the only completely true faith because I believe it is a God-given religion and God doesn't lie. I haven't yet come across anything that the Church teaches that I can't accept. I've asked lots of questions and got satisfactory answers.

God in His wisdom, has decided not to leave any proof of His existence
visible for all to see. He requires us to have faith in Him and don't ask me why this is so. It's one of God's mysteries.

John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

Noel.

Owen

kelly1 wrote:

God in His wisdom, has decided not to leave any proof of His existence visible for all to see. He requires us to have faith in Him and don't ask me why this is so. It's one of God's mysteries.

... and you're not a sheep? Quoting scripture is rather pointless.

kelly1

ned78 wrote:

... and you're not a sheep? Quoting scripture is rather pointless.

If belief in God makes me a sheep, then I'm happy to be called a sheep! I'd rather cover myself in wool and bleat that deny the existence of God!

BTW, isn't Atheism rather sheepish too? You can't prove that God doesn't
exist but yet you believe it. How do you defend atheism?

Noel.

Schuhart

kelly1 wrote:

God in His wisdom, has decided not to leave any proof of His existence visible for all to see. He requires us to have faith in Him and don't ask me why this is so. It's one of God's mysteries.

I think that's a clear and honest statement of the need for faith. I think it also marks the break with atheism, and I'm not sure there's any way of bridging it.

From my perspective, it boils down to attempting to recognise that, whatever the reason that people follow a faith, its not because belief in God is credible in any kind of objective sense. I don't mean to say this in a confrontational way - I'm simply trying to describe what appears to be a feature of theism. The roots of faith seem to come from something else.

However, from such little material as I've been able to find, belief in God seems sometimes to be nearly a consequence of the 'decision' to follow a faith, rather than the reason for following it. For the sake of argument, someone thinks of Catholicism and recollects its good side. Perhaps that leads to a commitment to that good side, with the consequence of adopting a belief in the divine. Alternatively, someone might see in some other religion a quality that they admire and adopt it as a consequence.

This might seem semi-incoherent, but it might be fleshed out by a brief example. I remember talking to a convert to Catholicism some time ago. What took her into that faith was a period working in Central America, when she was simply impressed by the spiritual contentment of Catholics living in poverty. That's what convinced her - simply a feeling that this contentment she witnessed must have a source.

The atheist outlook would see things the other way around - i.e. why follow a religion if there's no God? I'm not sure, as I said on the way in, that its possible to reconcile these two approachs.

Owen

kelly1 wrote:

How do you defend atheism?

Athiests are people who are quite content to live 80 years, and want nothing more. They take the world as it is, and don't need a sugar coated, happily ever after ending to their existence. Athiests don't believe in imaginary friends.

kelly1

Any way this thread has gone way off track. Yes, I'm guilty too!

Isn't it supposed to be about "Bible accuracy discussion"?

Fanny Cradock

ned78 wrote:

Your use of the word Cult indicates that you have no respect for any other beliefs other than your own.

I have to take exception to this, Ned. You have jumped to wild and unfounded conclusions about me form one word, cult. If you read scholarly articles regarding Mithraism they often use the term 'cult'. You can define cult simply as ‘a group that follows a theological system'. This is not an insult. Indeed, Christianity was itself considered a cult. If you think there are inconsistencies in my choice of words (and there may well be) please point them out, but I'd prefer if you didn't make groundless accusations about me and how I view other religions.

Conversely, I find your accusations that Christians are merely sheep rather insulting. Did you not say at the beginning of this thread that you did not wish to cause offence? If you did then can you understand how this could cause just that? Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but I feel that you do a very great number of intelligent, free-thinking and articulate people a disservice when you refer to them as sheep.

Now back to the matter at hand... Horus

*Isis = Mother. Osiris = Father. They were married for an indeterminate amount of time before Osiris was killed and hacked into 14 pieces by Set, his own father. Later Isis reforms Osiris' his body - well, 13 pieces of it - and draws his essence into her to form Horus. There is no mention of Isis being virgin. In fact, of the few variations that I know of surrounding Horus conception, Plutarch mentions that Isis fashioned a penis out of clay to attach to her husband (she couldn't find the real thing!) and then using that for a good time. That doesn't seem particularly virginal to me. Horus was later conceived in a swamp after Isis had to hide there from Set.
*I don't believe there is any reference to Horus walking on water; there is, however, reference to him being thrown into water, I believe.
*In similar manner, there is no reference to 12 'disciples'. There are demi-gods and humans - including blacksmiths - who went to battle with him, but they don't add up to 12.
*Finally, there is no reference to him on the mountain, dying on the cross between two thieves, being laid in a tomb, going to hell and finally being resurrected. If you have any information contrary to this please provide it.


Mercy, that's a long post

Bradidup

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I think that's a clear and honest statement of the need for faith. I think it also marks the break with atheism, and I'm not sure there's any way of bridging it.

The atheist outlook would see things the other way around - i.e. why follow a religion if there's no God? I'm not sure, as I said on the way in, that its possible to reconcile these two approachs.

I don't think it is, myself. One is either attracted to religion, and belief in God, or not. Some of have to be stony ground...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

ned78 wrote:

Athiests are people who are quite content to live 80 years, and want nothing more.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. I would love to live forever

But as I think you were trying to say, there is a difference between wanting something and believing you will get it. I would love to be a millionaire too, but I don't think that is likely either

JimiTime

ned78 wrote:

Athiests are people who are quite content to live 80 years, and want nothing more. They take the world as it is, and don't need a sugar coated, happily ever after ending to their existence. Athiests don't believe in imaginary friends.

Maybe if your 80 years of life were in some poverty stricken place, Atheism would not be a luxury you could afford. When things go bad, and hope is all you can cling to, maybe, just maybe, your feelings will change.

And just in case you haven't heard this one

The Atheist and the Bear:
One day an atheist was walking through the forest, when he heard a russle in the trees. Then lumbering towards him came this giant, hungry grissley bear. The atheist ran as fast as he could, the bear in close pusuit. Then, the atheist tripped on the root of one of the trees, and as the bear closed in he prayed 'Please God I believe in you, make the bear a christian'. At that very moment the bear stopped, joined his paws together and said 'Thank you God for this bountiful meal you have provided for me'.:D

Owen

JimiTime wrote:

Maybe if your 80 years of life were in some poverty stricken place, Atheism would not be a luxury you could afford. When things go bad, and hope is all you can cling to, maybe, just maybe, your feelings will change.

So, you're confirming one of my beliefs that people believe in God because they need something to be hopeful for?

Owen

Bradidup wrote:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12

Quoting scripture does nothing to sway Athiests. Would you be even remotely swayed if I started quoting from The Hiram Key, Holy Blood Holy Grail, or even The God Delusion?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Maybe if your 80 years of life were in some poverty stricken place, Atheism would not be a luxury you could afford. When things go bad, and hope is all you can cling to, maybe, just maybe, your feelings will change.

Well remember what Marx said, religion is the opium of the people. When things are really bad religion focuses on all the wondeful things in the after life, rather than you know actually trying to actually fix the bad things here and now.

JimiTime

ned78 wrote:

So, you're confirming one of my beliefs that people believe in God because they need something to be hopeful for?

Yes! I most certainly am. You, and others seem to hold this up as some kind of evidence against it Its not the only reason for belief, but the hope God brings is certainly one of the great benefits. That hope may be the instigator of Faith. I.E. A death in the family has you question spirituality. You are looking for hope and you find it. While thats what got you to look in the first place, it may be fairly insignificant as your Faith progresses.

Owen

JimiTime wrote:

Yes! I most certainly am. You, and others seem to hold this up as some kind of evidence against it Its not the only reason for belief, but the hope God brings is certainly one of the great benefits. That hope may be the instigator of Faith. I.E. A death in the family has you question spirituality. You are looking for hope and you find it. While thats what got you to look in the first place, it may be fairly insignificant as your Faith progresses.

I know what you're saying, and I respect it. But from my perspective (Which is probably far removed from what everyone else says on this thread), I think someone turning to God because they're desparate, is just a frailty of humanity in the absence of being able to accept life for what it is.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Well remember what Marx said, religion is the opium of the people. When things are really bad religion focuses on all the wondeful things in the after life, rather than you know actually trying to actually fix the bad things here and now.

Thats a good point. However, although Christs teachings have been corrupted by religions, his teachings would not authorise such an attitude. You must seperate the religion from what Christs teachings actually were.

Zombrex

ned78 wrote:

Quoting scripture does nothing to sway Athiests.

LOL .. I've long given up pointing that out ned78 .. tilting against the windmills

Schuhart

Jimitime wrote:

Maybe if your 80 years of life were in some poverty stricken place, Atheism would not be a luxury you could afford. When things go bad, and hope is all you can cling to, maybe, just maybe, your feelings will change.

Another interesting indication that its not the credibility of God that's important to believers. Its the relevance of religion to a person's own context or outlook.

I was reading on book on the psychology of religion a while back, and it suggests a basis for Jimitime's feeling. Studies do show that an increase in religious practice is associated with serious illness/injury. Again, there's no logical reason for this. Why would the experience of being left paralysed after a car accident suddenly mean God is more credible a concept? Yet, many people do turn to religion at those times.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think this is where Dawkins approach to religion is too simplistic. It is simply a fact that many people find, for the sake of argument, a visit to Lourdes to be helpful in coming to terms with their situation. Sam Harris (in 'The End of Faith') is more open to acknowledging this aspect of religion - i.e. its relevance to people's general lives, regardless of truth.

JimiTime

ned78 wrote:

I know what you're saying, and I respect it. But from my perspective (Which is probably far removed from what everyone else says on this thread), I think someone turning to God because they're desparate, is just a frailty of humanity in the absence of being able to accept life for what it is.

Which brings me back to the point i made earlier. You may have the luxury of that opinion, but if your circumstances were less fortunate, maybe things would be different. Maybe thats why Jesus said it was 'easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to paradise'. Maybe thats why he also said that the truth will be spoken through the mouths of babes and not by the scibes. Maybe you must be humbled and lowly of heart before you hear the truth. Those who need hope, maybe are those who look for the help.

robindch

> [Schuhart] Studies do show that an increase in religious practice is associated with
> serious illness/injury. Again, there's no logical reason for this.

No logical reason perhaps, but some believe that the psychological reason is something similar to what gives rise to Stockholm syndrome. The basic idea behind both being that if you believe that a deity controls your environment, and your environment is hostile, then you should appease the deity and trust the deity will behave in a more benign way. It's believed to be a simple misfiring of the innate tendency towards reciprocity that most, if not all, all primates demonstrate.

I don't recall Dawkins mentioning this in TGD, but it's a short walk to reach it from some of his other points.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Which brings me back to the point i made earlier. You may have the luxury of that opinion, but if your circumstances were less fortunate, maybe things would be different. Maybe thats why Jesus said it was 'easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to paradise'. Maybe thats why he also said that the truth will be spoken through the mouths of babes and not by the scibes. Maybe you must be humbled and lowly of heart before you hear the truth. Those who need hope, maybe are those who look for the help.

Hmm. I don't think that's true. I've been through the death of close family members, divorce of my parents (long, bitterly contested), the loss of all the family wealth (that's from 2 houses on Leeson Street, one in Dalkey, and a mansion - in the 80's - to nothing), 2 years working at sea, three serious near-death experiences (fire during a hurricane at sea, off a road in the Alps, and drug dealers in Tangiers), and the collapse of my first business.

None of that made me 'turn to God', so perhaps I am simply differently made?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I've been through the death of close family members, divorce of my parents (long, bitterly contested), the loss of all the family wealth (that's from 2 houses on Leeson Street, one in Dalkey, and a mansion - in the 80's - to nothing), 2 years working at sea, three serious near-death experiences (fire during a hurricane at sea, off a road in the Alps, and drug dealers in Tangiers), and the collapse of my first business.

Bloody hell Scofflaw .. I feel like giving you a big hug

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

You may have the luxury of that opinion, but if your circumstances were less fortunate, maybe things would be different.

Well that is kinda like saying You may not believe you are going to win the lottery now, but if you lost all your money and were completely broke living out on the street you may feel differently

Even if I lost everything and was living out on the street I wouldn't think that I was anymore likely to win the lottery, because just because I was broke doesn't mean I'm any more likely to win the lottery.

Owen

JimiTime wrote:

Maybe thats why Jesus said it was 'easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to paradise'.

Those old cliches Jesus used are gold. They always remind me of the movie Mystery Men. There's an older character, called The Sphinx, who mesmeries the cast with quotations like :

If you doubt your powers, you give power to your doubts.
If you don't master your rage, your rage will become your master.
Before you can learn to train, I must train you to learn.

And I really feel people were so uneducated in Jesus' time, that they would have been equally blown away by whimsical, philosophical phrases.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote:

> [Schuhart] Studies do show that an increase in religious practice is associated with
> serious illness/injury. Again, there's no logical reason for this.

No logical reason perhaps, but some believe that the psychological reason is something similar to what gives rise to Stockholm syndrome. The basic idea behind both being that if you believe that a deity controls your environment, and your environment is hostile, then you should appease the deity and trust the deity will behave in a more benign way. It's believed to be a simple misfiring of the innate tendency towards reciprocity that most, if not all, all primates demonstrate.

I don't recall Dawkins mentioning this in TGD, but it's a short walk to reach it from some of his other points.

A couple of things about the above: I don’t believe that God directly* controls my (our) environment, nor do I necessarily think that my environment is a hostile one. By this I mean that God isn’t responsible for war, famine, earthquakes etc. and he doesn’t actively punish ‘bad’ people. I also believe that pleasing God won’t necessarily lead to a greater degree of safety – possibly quite the opposite in fact.

*Yet at the same time I do believe that God has a real presence and can direct matters.

Scofflaw, I’m sorry to hear that you have been through so much. It shows that you have a great deal of strength of character to get through all that. I've been lucky enough not to have had any of those experiences in my life, yet I believe in God.


::Edit::

Ned, lack of education doesn't imply lack of intelligence.

robindch

> Bloody hell Scofflaw .. I feel like giving you a big hug

I'll second that -- makes my near-drowning (no, god didn't help) look like a swim in a puddle. Beers on me!

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Bloody hell Scofflaw .. I feel like giving you a big hug

robindch wrote:

I'll second that -- makes my near-drowning (no, god didn't help) look like a swim in a puddle. Beers on me!

Thanks, guys, that's very kind...sniff, sniff. Really, really, I'm only mentioning it because this claim of "ooh, yes, you wait till something bad happens, you'll be running back to take Nursie's hand" annoys me. It's all been turned into funny stories long since.

tearfully,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

robindch wrote:

The basic idea behind both being that if you believe that a deity controls your environment, and your environment is hostile, then you should appease the deity and trust the deity will behave in a more benign way. It's believed to be a simple misfiring of the innate tendency towards reciprocity that most, if not all, all primates demonstrate.

That’s fine up to a point, but I think the study (which is only referred to in the book I was reading – I don’t have the original) was talking about situations where people take to religion after the accident. Hence, the deity has already shafted you so there’s not much point in seeking more benign behaviour. Now, I suppose it could be related to an aspiration of ‘don’t do anything worse to me’. But what seems to be reported is an acceptance of whatever predicament the sufferer is left in.

robindch wrote:

I don't recall Dawkins mentioning this in TGD, but it's a short walk to reach it from some of his other points.

I think Dawkins deals effectively with the essential ‘is there a God’ type argument. I think he just doesn’t deal with a pretty obvious follow-up. If the chance of there being a God is so remote, why does faith persist? I think (speculating) the guy is caught in a trap of his own making. I think he finds it hard to come to terms with the idea that humans operate quite well while holding on to quite bizarre beliefs. What I recall is he tries, unconvincingly, to allege that religion must be an evolutionary byproduct of something useful.

robindch wrote:

> Bloody hell Scofflaw .. I feel like giving you a big hug

I'll second that -- makes my near-drowning (no, god didn't help) look like a swim in a puddle. Beers on me!

I’m just getting over quite a painful muscle strain, if anyone’s listening. I was really sore for a few days.

Owen

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Ned, lack of education doesn't imply lack of intelligence.

2000 years ago your average israelite living in a mud house probably wouldn't have been that intelligent, or educated, and would believe stories like Noah and the Ark, without the mental tools needed to question it*.

I truly believe 'The Life of Brian' is probably the most accurate reflection of how quickly religions popped up in that time - people had nothing to live for, and needed to feel good about themselves. They didn't know why the Sun and Moon rose, why plants grew, or how evolution worked. They had to invent the concept of God to explain all these wonders.

*Excluding the Romans and Greeks, who had an understanding of the planets, medicine, hygene, mathematics and psychology.

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I don't think that's true. I've been through the death of close family members, divorce of my parents (long, bitterly contested), the loss of all the family wealth (that's from 2 houses on Leeson Street, one in Dalkey, and a mansion - in the 80's - to nothing), 2 years working at sea, three serious near-death experiences (fire during a hurricane at sea, off a road in the Alps, and drug dealers in Tangiers), and the collapse of my first business.

None of that made me 'turn to God', so perhaps I am simply differently made?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It obviously is not true for you. It does not mean its not true for everyone. Obviously, its not going to apply to everyone. I think the point I make, has no arguement. Its not an absolute statement, its a 'maybe' statement. I don't think people can deny, that when bad things happen, some look for hope, and find it in God. Doen't happen everyone, but there you go. The initial point was using the need for hope as if its in evidence against Faith, which it isn't.

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is kinda like saying You may not believe you are going to win the lottery now, but if you lost all your money and were completely broke living out on the street you may feel differently

Even if I lost everything and was living out on the street I wouldn't think that I was anymore likely to win the lottery, because just because I was broke doesn't mean I'm any more likely to win the lottery.

Its about hope! You do understand that concept yes? The point was, if your circumstance seemed hopeless, maybe spirituality will be awoken in you. I.E. You are in a famine ravaged part of Africa, and you think, is this all there is to my life? Then you see if there is more than this life. You find God, and with it, hope in something more. Again, You have no right to argue otherwise, for you are not that unfortunate. You may say now, 'well I'll always know this or that', but until you experience it you just don't know.

Ned wrote:

Those old cliches Jesus used are gold. They always remind me of the movie Mystery Men. There's an older character, called The Sphinx, who mesmeries the cast with his babble with quotations like :

If you doubt your powers, you give power to your doubts.
If you don't master your rage, your rage will become your master.
Before you can learn to train, I must train you to learn.

And I really feel people were so uneducated in Jesus' time, that they would have been equally blown away by whimsical, philosophical phrases.

Oh dear! If you want to discuss things with me, I would expect something more than 'Those old cliches Jesus gave are Gold'. Come back with something insightful if you want a genuine conversation, because the above statement just smacks of someone with an axe to grind. Seriously Ned, i hope you realise how juvenile the above point is.

Owen

JimiTime wrote:

Oh dear! If you want to discuss things with me, I would expect something more than 'Those old cliches Jesus gave are Gold'. Come back with something insightful if you want a genuine conversation, because the above statement just smacks of someone with an axe to grind. Seriously Ned, i hope you realise how juvenile the above point is.

And I'm quite proud of it.

Fanny Cradock

Schuhart wrote:

I’m just getting over quite a painful muscle strain, if anyone’s listening. I was really sore for a few days.

I'll say a prayer for your back pian

JimiTime

ned78 wrote:

2000 years ago your average israelite living in a mud house probably wouldn't have been that intelligent, or educated, and would believe stories like Noah and the Ark, without the mental tools needed to question it*.

I truly believe 'The Life of Brian' is probably the most accurate reflection of how quickly religions popped up in that time

And maybe in another 2000 years people will be looking back saying, 'see, some people used to use fictitious fils as a means to justify their points'. thats Mystery men and life of Brian. I think its time you turned the telly off:p

They didn't know why the Sun and Moon rose, why plants grew, or how evolution worked. They had to invent the concept of God to explain all these wonders.

And we know today 'Why' the Sun and Moon rise do we? Do we know 'Why' things grow? Why would they bother looking for evolution, they obviously didn't see any missing links. They had to invent the God concept, bravo. What film did that come from:p Ned, I think its simple, have a look at the point you made about the Jews of the day basically being idiots, and think about it. And just to save confusion, John Cleese, Michael Palin and Eric Idle were actors in a comedy and it wasn't real life:p Hope I haven't been too sarcastic:D
[/QUOTE]