Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief: UBC study
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Next
peck420 @ Tue May 01, 2012 8:21 am
I wonder what is more important:
Having faith?
Or what you have faith in?
Wada @ Tue May 01, 2012 8:32 am
Well, if you look at history man has had faith in many gods over the course of time and none seem to have accomplished much for the benefit of mankind. 
peck420 @ Tue May 01, 2012 8:46 am
I would say that the fact that we are still here disputes your analysis.
I think that as long as we strive to move forward, better ourselves, etc, we win.
andyt @ Tue May 01, 2012 9:46 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
From a Deist perspective, God made it and said, 'now you're on your own!'. Sort of the watchmaker god that deism advocates.....by Crom
That means this demiurge created evil and suffering. Why? The Gnostics would have it that he is himself evil.
With what science has revealed about the universe, I think a concept like Brahman makes much more sense. Not as much fun tho, you can't give him thanks when you score a touchdown in football. Or claim he saved you from a disaster.
peck420 @ Tue May 01, 2012 9:56 am
Maybe to highlight the good and just?
Maybe because you can not have one without the other (good vs evil)?
Or maybe it was just another man that wrote a story that inspired others to be better.
Lot's of maybes.
peck420 @ Tue May 01, 2012 10:00 am
Just a side.
But, until science definitively proves that our planet has never been visited by any others...we can never really deny the possibility that some gods (for lack of better term, especially in ancient times) have been here to help or harm humanity.
Just saying.
andyt @ Tue May 01, 2012 10:01 am
You can't have good without evil, I agree. But that means that we have little kids dying of leukemia and all kinds of other undeserved suffering in the world. Why? And for God to be good, does that mean he has to be evil as well?
And, the monotheists have a problem with the afterlife as well. Lots of people do all kinds of evil and live a long a fruitful life. So apparently they get their just desserts in the afterlife - unending torment. Why would a loving God set up a system like that? It sounds very sadistic to me.
peck420 @ Tue May 01, 2012 10:12 am
Andyt,
That is a statement made under the assumption that we and 'gods' have the same meanings for the same emotions and actions.
There is no way of knowing (if gods do exist) that what they say and what we interpret are the same.
For all we know, we could be trying to give meanings to the actions of a being that hardly (if at all) recognizes our existence.
andyt @ Tue May 01, 2012 10:25 am
God in the bible is a human writ large. He's sometimes angry, sometimes loving, and intimately involved in human affairs, to the point he sends his only son to die for our sins. So in what you say, that's certainly not the Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) God. It's why I said said with today's understanding of the universe, Brahman makes a lot more sense. Brahman is just an organizing principle, an intelligence behind the workings of he universe. Brahman is no he or she or a being at all. Personally, that fits better with my belief than the Christian God. But, in these discussions, when people use the term God, it's usually the Christian God that's being referred to.
I think there is an overarching intelligence in the universe. What Buddhists call Big Mind. Our own little consciousness is part of that intelligence. But, I've had experiences of a more personal God, a God of love, so I don't know what that's about. A H Almas says that the ultimate reality is a non-personal consciousness, ie the creative force, but sort of one step below that arises a personal supreme consciousness - God. That's always made the most sense to me. But as you say, s/he may not care all that much what I think. Didn't seem that way at the time tho.
BartSimpson @ Tue May 01, 2012 11:32 am
andyt andyt:
As I said, I'll take the word of Karen Armstrong over yours.
In some circles (like those of people who actually believe in Christ) members of the Jesus Seminar enjoy precious little credibility.
You may recall I used to criticize Biblical Christian for using the Bible to justify the Bible (circular logic) and here I am criticizing you for citing people who do not evidence a faith yet are pronouncing judgment upon people of faith.
The Jesus Seminar essentially denies the deity of Christ and in this they are no more Christian than Derby is.
Reducing Jesus to a mere figure of history obviates Christianity. That the Jesus Seminar folks are popular with some atheists, some Muslims, and some Jews who wish to discredit Jesus or diminish him is of no great consequence. I believe the term 'useful idiot' would apply here.
For non-believers I can see the attraction in wanting to look at Jesus as an historical figure because that dovetails with the whole 'non-belief' paradigm.
But citing a major player of the Jesus Seminar to me with regards to the deity of Jesus is on par with citing a panel of AGW skeptics on the credibility of James Hansen. The outcome of a panel hostile to the topic they're pronouncing upon is a given.
To a lesser extent, I find it comical that on the History Channel whenever they have programs about Biblical history they consistently manage to avoid interviewing any actual believers.
While that may be done for some reason of 'impartiality' the problem inherent in the approach is that the individuals interviewed are not at all impartial because they enter the discussion dismissing the very historical accounts they're supposed to speak about.
It's like doing a program on global warming and only interviewing skeptics in order to try to be impartial. Does that make sense to you?
andyt @ Tue May 01, 2012 11:43 am
You can throw around labels like liberal all you want. I don't even know what that means in terms of religion. But the point I made was that people pre-reformation didn't relate to the bible strictly as a literal document, nor in fact did Calvin, it sounds like. A Hindu professor could make that point and it would not diminish his argument. This isn't about faith but interpreting history.
You want to think your faith is more valid than Karen Armstrong's, or all the other people who say that a strictly literal interpretation of the bible is a recent phenomenon, go ahead. It's got nothing to do with the argument at hand, and is actually a pretty silly thing to say.
BartSimpson @ Tue May 01, 2012 12:10 pm
andyt andyt:
You can throw around labels like liberal all you want. I don't even know what that means in terms of religion. But the point I made was that people pre-reformation didn't relate to the bible strictly as a literal document, nor in fact did Calvin, it sounds like. A Hindu professor could make that point and it would not diminish his argument. This isn't about faith but interpreting history.
Andy, your comment about the pre-Reformation popular perspective on the Bible is itself a statement of your ignorance on the topic. You really don't know that much about the period and you're not making a very good case for yourself here.
Here's a question for you: Prior to the Reformation who read the Bible?
andyt andyt:
You want to think your faith is more valid than Karen Armstrong's, or all the other people who say that a strictly literal interpretation of the bible is a recent phenomenon, go ahead. It's got nothing to do with the argument at hand, and is actually a pretty silly thing to say.
I did not say that my faith is more valid that Karen Armstrongs. I said that I believe in Jesus. Armstrong, on the other hand, does not evidence a faith in Jesus and, to the contrary, has made a career of diminishing the deity of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
$1:
The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms.[3][4][5] An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.[3][4][5] According to the seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.[3][4][5] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.[3][4][5]
That highlighted passage there, the one that Karen Armstrong has endorsed?
I put it in context for you but let's isolate it, shall we?
$1:
Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.
In the general consensus of Christianity the Nicene Creed defines what it means to be a Christian:
$1:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Jesus Seminar, and by inclusion Karen Armstrong, have publicly renounced the Nicene Creed and by their own words they have made the case that they are not Christians.
I will not speak to their faith, be that as it may, but I will say that they do not evidence a Christian faith according to the standard that remains the standard after near 1,700 years.
PluggyRug @ Tue May 01, 2012 12:20 pm
One would wonder if all the analytical thought processes contained in this thread has decreased the poster's religious beliefs.
andyt @ Tue May 01, 2012 12:26 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
andyt andyt:
You can throw around labels like liberal all you want. I don't even know what that means in terms of religion. But the point I made was that people pre-reformation didn't relate to the bible strictly as a literal document, nor in fact did Calvin, it sounds like. A Hindu professor could make that point and it would not diminish his argument. This isn't about faith but interpreting history.
Andy, your comment about the pre-Reformation popular perspective on the Bible is itself a statement of your ignorance on the topic. You really don't know that much about the period and you're not making a very good case for yourself here.
Here's a question for you: Prior to the Reformation who read the Bible?
andyt andyt:
You want to think your faith is more valid than Karen Armstrong's, or all the other people who say that a strictly literal interpretation of the bible is a recent phenomenon, go ahead. It's got nothing to do with the argument at hand, and is actually a pretty silly thing to say.
I did not say that my faith is more valid that Karen Armstrongs. I said that I believe in Jesus. Armstrong, on the other hand, does not evidence a faith in Jesus and, to the contrary, has made a career of diminishing the deity of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
$1:
The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms.[3][4][5] An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.[3][4][5] According to the seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.[3][4][5] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.[3][4][5]
That highlighted passage there, the one that Karen Armstrong has endorsed?
I put it in context for you but let's isolate it, shall we?
$1:
Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.
In the general consensus of Christianity the Nicene Creed defines what it means to be a Christian:
$1:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Jesus Seminar, and by inclusion Karen Armstrong, have publicly renounced the Nicene Creed and by their own words they have made the case that they are not Christians.
I will not speak to their faith, be that as it may, but I will say that they do not evidence a Christian faith according to the standard that remains the standard after near 1,700 years.
All that doesn't matter. As I said, a historian who happened to be Hindu could say that literalism of the bible is a recent phenomenon, and it would not make him wrong. This is about historical interpretation, not faith.
You say that most pre-literate times people didn't read the bible. Of course not. As you say, the specialists who could read Latin read the bible. But both those specialists, and the people having the bible read to them, didn't take it all only literally, they understood, way better than we do, the truth that can be in myth. As the quotes I gave demonstrate, this attempt to make the bible a literal document is a recent phenomenon that is a bastard child of the success of materialist science. The people doing it are in a serious case of cognitive dissonance, because they are trying to adhere to something that the dominant paradigm of our time tells them is bullshit. Must suck to be them.
You've made a big balloo about a minor point I made. I don't know if you're a literalist and that's why you feel so threatened, but if that's so, history isn't with you. As you've said yourself, it's a phenomenon that arose out of Protestantism. But I'll tell you what, in Europe, the home of Protestantism, this literalism is almost unknown. It's some weird US thing that has grown up in the last 100 years or so. If you think this is the truth, well all power to you.
BartSimpson @ Tue May 01, 2012 12:45 pm
Andy, let me be blunt: Citing the Jesus Seminar to Christians is right on par with citing the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust to Jews.
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Next