Are you religious? Now featuring a poll

[tarheelbybirth]

Hmmmm…

Could you elaborate on your idea that a creator cannot be aware of what He creates?

That is a head-scratcher.

How's this...God builds a car. God knows the car is going to work because...well, it's God. Now YOU, as a tiny little screw in that car, might think the entire car was created for you and the driver knows exactly how you're going to function every second and is intimately aware of every little vibration you experience and built the car specifically to have some kind of relationship with you. But the driver actually doesn't care about you...isn't aware of you...and built the car for reasons you can't begin to fathom.

A very imprecise metaphor.

There are people who believe God made the entire universe for lil ole us. There are people who think that's nonsense.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

He made up his own definition of God being "the universe." So, he may have been a pantheist but he was an atheist in terms of his unbelief in a personal God.

Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist? | Issue 151 | Philosophy Now

Kenneth Novis says the case hinges on how you define ‘God’.

philosophynow.org

Ahhh...so we're ALL atheist - including you. Got it.

 

[BrianNole777]

Ahhh...so we're ALL atheist - including you. Got it.

Nope.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Nope.

You believe in Zeus? No? You're an atheist. That is literally your position.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

How's this...God builds a car. God knows the car is going to work because...well, it's God. Now YOU, as a tiny little screw in that car, might think the entire car was created for you and the driver knows exactly how you're going to function every second and is intimately aware of every little vibration you experience and built the car specifically to have some kind of relationship with you. But the driver actually doesn't care about you...isn't aware of you...and built the car for reasons you can't begin to fathom.

A very imprecise metaphor.

There are people who believe God made the entire universe for lil ole us. There are people who think that's nonsense.

How’s this:

Boeing makes high quality airplanes. Boeing knows it makes airplanes. Boeing loves its airplanes and wants all of them to do well. Boeing carefully designs and crafts every single component that goes into each airplane. Boeing oversees the design process and the manufacturing and inspection of each part. Boeing oversees millions and millions of parts and components. Boeing does all of it very well.

So, if Boeing can create airplanes and cares deeply about every single piece that goes into the airplane and inventories every square millimeter of each airplane…..would it be a stretch to say a God & creator of the universe could care about every tiny detail as well?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

How’s this:

Boeing makes high quality airplanes. Boeing knows it makes airplanes. Boeing loves its airplanes and wants all of them to do well. Boeing carefully designs and crafts every single component that goes into each airplane. Boeing oversees the design process and the manufacturing and inspection of each part. Boeing oversees millions and millions of parts and components. Boeing does all of it very well.

So, if Boeing can create airplanes and cares deeply about every single piece that goes into the airplane and inventories every square millimeter of each airplane…..would it be a stretch to say a God & creator of the universe could care about every tiny detail as well?

Nope. Boeing can screw up. If you can snap your fingers and create a plane to accomplish some particular goal knowing the plane is going to perform flawlessly, what do you care about any particular component? Heck, it possible, that the plane is just a part of something unfathomably larger.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Nope. Boeing can screw up. If you can snap your fingers and create a plane to accomplish some particular goal knowing the plane is going to perform flawlessly, what do you care about any particular component? Heck, it possible, that the plane is just a part of something unfathomably larger.

Of course Boeing can screw up. Boeing is not God. I’m surprised that needs clarified….

What if you are part of the “something larger?” Why does that seem like an impossibility to you? Why couldn’t humans be part of something larger?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Of course Boeing can screw up. Boeing is not God. I’m surprised that needs clarified….

What if you are part of the “something larger?” Why does that seem like an impossibility to you? Why couldn’t humans be part of something larger?

And the point is there is absolutely no way to know so be the best person you can be in THIS life because you don’t get another one. The rest will take care of itself. If you need someone else to tell you how to be your best, that’s fine by me as long as they’re not actually telling you to be an asshole.

 

[BrianNole777]

You believe in Zeus? No? You're an atheist. That is literally your position.

Zeus doesn't have a monopoly on theism.

I believe in the Trinity, therefore, I'm not an atheist.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

And the point is there is absolutely no way to know so be the best person you can be in THIS life because you don’t get another one. The rest will take care of itself. If you need someone else to tell you how to be your best, that’s fine by me as long as they’re not actually telling you to be an asshole.

Sure, but then we’re just back to the other thread. What do we measure “best” by? How do we know if someone is being their best? Where does our innate sense of morality come from?

 

[EasyHawk]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

BTW, there are Quakers who are "non-theists".

I know that's true of Buddhism. Some maintain that basic Buddhism requires no belief in god or gods.

It used to be the case that lots of Unitarians were, at best, nominally religious. I don't know if that's still true.

But how does non-theism work in the Quaker context?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

being aware of the universe doesn't mean it would be aware of every single tiny little item in that universe. Are you aware of your body? Are you aware of every single cell in your little toe?

And yet, some insist that their god is omniscient.

I've always loved St Anselm's onotological argument.

There's an urban legend that Bertrand Russell was walking down the streets of Cambridge one day thinking about Anselm's argument and stopped dead saying "By God, he's right!" Then he walked a few steps more and said "Oh, no he isn't."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Such a fun argument:

Anselm defines God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived," and argues that such a being must exist in the mind, even in that of the person who denies the existence of God.​

​

From this, he suggests that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality, because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one who exists both in mind and in reality.​

​

Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.​

[wiki excerpt]

 

[BrianNole777]

Such a fun argument:

Anselm defines God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived," and argues that such a being must exist in the mind, even in that of the person who denies the existence of God.​

​

From this, he suggests that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality, because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one who exists both in mind and in reality.​

​

Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.​

[wiki excerpPig?

I agree with Blaise Pascal here. He didn't like arguments for the existence of God because they were too abstract and complicated so he went strictly to enlightened self-interest, which is in the Bible.

Understanding Pascal’s Wager

Many people (believers and non-believers alike) misunderstand the nature of Pascal’s Wager. Here is a an easy guide to understanding the argument.

www.catholic.com

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I agree with Blaise Pascal here. He didn't like arguments for the existence of God because they were too abstract and complicated so he went strictly to enlightened self-interest, which is in the Bible.

Understanding Pascal’s Wager

Many people (believers and non-believers alike) misunderstand the nature of Pascal’s Wager. Here is a an easy guide to understanding the argument.

www.catholic.com

Would you care to address the “wrong god” argument. That article does a terrible job. Claiming the evidence for Christianity is greater than other religions is meaningless…and incorrect. And, apparently, you “win” even if you don’t believe in the Christian god - or, at least, you don’t lose. FTR, Anthony Kenny isn’t remotely an atheist.

 

[BrianNole777]

Would you care to address the “wrong god” argument. That article does a terrible job. Claiming the evidence for Christianity is greater than other religions is meaningless…and incorrect. And, apparently, you “win” even if you don’t believe in the Christian god - or, at least, you don’t lose. FTR, Anthony Kenny isn’t remotely an atheist.

Sure. Believing in the "wrong" God is a risk that everyone takes, even agnostics and atheists.

The evidence for Jesus and His resurrection is solid. It's based on historical evidence like the crucifixion, empty tomb, missing body and resurrection appearances.

If someone is in another religion and is "invincibly ignorant" of the truth, they can be saved.

That doesn't really include atheists/agnostics in America, though, but of course, it's not up to me.

Here's some light reading from Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas: Contra Gentiles: English

isidore.co

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Sure. Believing in the "wrong" God is a risk that everyone takes, even agnostics and atheists.

Even Christians.

The evidence for Jesus and His resurrection is solid. It's based on historical evidence like the crucifixion, empty tomb, missing body and resurrection appearances.

Ummm...we can visit the tomb? There are contemporaneous accounts other than the Bible for everything cited? Muhammad absolutely existed. There are documented accounts of his life and teachings. There is just as much support for his ascension as there is for the resurrection. Does that make Islam more compelling than other religions? That's the claim made in the article.

Like I said, they present terrible arguments in support of Pascal.

If someone is in another religion and is "invincibly ignorant" of the truth, they can be saved.

How? It can't be faith.

That doesn't really include atheists/agnostics in America, though, but of course, it's not up to me.

So Gandhi can't be saved? He was well aware of Christianity. He admired Christ. Didn't think much of most Christians.

Here's some light reading from Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas: Contra Gentiles: English

isidore.co

Thnx

 

[BrianNole777]

Even Christians.

Ummm...we can visit the tomb? There are contemporaneous accounts other than the Bible for everything cited? Muhammad absolutely existed. There are documented accounts of his life and teachings. There is just as much support for his ascension as there is for the resurrection. Does that make Islam more compelling than other religions? That's the claim made in the article.

Like I said, they present terrible arguments in support of Pascal.

How? It can't be faith.

So Gandhi can't be saved? He was well aware of Christianity. He admired Christ. Didn't think much of most Christians.

Thnx

Mohammad definitely existed. He was also a warlord that married a 6 year old when he was 53. He had slaves.

I'm not a huge fan of that.

Ghandi could be saved. We'll find out one day, or not.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The evidence for Jesus and His resurrection is solid. It's based on historical evidence like the crucifixion, empty tomb, missing body and resurrection appearances.

Plenty of more plausible explanations for these supposed facts. Even if you accept that an itinerant preacher named Jesus was crucified, the stories could be fabrications, Jesus may not have been dead when removed from the cross, and so on.

Naturally you accept the Christian account as true, but why should others?

You say there are historians and archeologists who support your claims? OK, but a missing body, even if proven to be true to everyone's satisfaction, hardly proves resurrection.

Just because there were scientists who disputed tobacco harm and others who deny climate change doesn't make their fabrications true. We should apply the same standards to religious claims.

Suppose someone 100 years ago were claimed to have been resurrected, and to be divine. What proof would you require? Would an empty grave, reported sightings and the claims of his followers or his PR firm be good enough for you?

 

[alaskanseminole]

Plenty of more plausible explanations for these supposed facts. Even if you accept that an itinerant preacher named Jesus was crucified, the stories could be fabrications, Jesus may not have been dead when removed from the cross, and so on.

Naturally you accept the Christian account as true, but why should others?

You say there are historians and archeologists who support your claims? OK, but a missing body, even if proven to be true to everyone's satisfaction, hardly proves resurrection.

Just because there were scientists who disputed tobacco harm and others who deny climate change doesn't make those fabrications true. We should apply the same standards to religious claims.

Suppose someone 100 years ago were claimed to have been resurrected, and to be divine. What proof would you require? Would an empty grave, reported sightings and the claims of his followers or his PR firm be good enough for you?

Here's my take, WWJD. A person cannot just focus on the scientific and archeological aspects of the Bible. There must be a faith aspect as well and in my opinion, they don't contradict (from a "can't coexist" point of view), they are interwoven.

Jeremiah wrote a letter to the exiled Jews in Babylon. He wrote of restoration, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” IMO, we should read this as pertaining not only to them but to all God’s Church, even today. It captures a basic principle of relating to our God that holds true in every generation of believers.

Furthermore, Jesus said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” God has made himself completely and totally available to those who want to know Him. He calls to us, but he does not force us to follow. It is a crucial element of our relationship and fellowship with Him that we actually choose to seek Him.

Without the Holy Spirit a person can read the Bible from cover to cover and "miss it" (for lack of a better term). It's why I've been so adamant on HROT that these so called political Christians haven't even really read the Bible. Instead they cherry pick scriptures to support a narrative and in essence have weaponized the Bible. It's God's Living Word (a different discussion can be had on this) and it wasn't written to be taken out of context. It wasn't written to control others, as Carnegie in the Book of Eli attempted to do.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Here's my take, WWJD. A person cannot just focus on the scientific and archeological aspects of the Bible.

Why not? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Sure, you are right that believers can add their belief to the mix. But there's no reason for anyone else to.

As you doubtless know, there are other ways to study the bible that don't require faith, as well. The bible as literature. The bible as history. And so on.

It's an important book that has had and still does have a huge influence on human civilization. Good and bad. So it's worth studying. But faith isn't required.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It's why I've been so adamant on HROT that these so called political Christians haven't even really read the Bible. Instead they cherry pick scriptures to support a narrative and in essence have weaponized the Bible.

Totally agree. But, again, you don't need faith to see that.

 

[BrianNole777]

Plenty of more plausible explanations for these supposed facts. Even if you accept that an itinerant preacher named Jesus was crucified, the stories could be fabrications, Jesus may not have been dead when removed from the cross, and so on.

Naturally you accept the Christian account as true, but why should others?

You say there are historians and archeologists who support your claims? OK, but a missing body, even if proven to be true to everyone's satisfaction, hardly proves resurrection.

Just because there were scientists who disputed tobacco harm and others who deny climate change doesn't make those fabrications true. We should apply the same standards to religious claims.

Suppose someone 100 years ago were claimed to have been resurrected, and to be divine. What proof would you require? Would an empty grave, reported sightings and the claims of his followers or his PR firm be good enough for you?

Jesus was definitely dead when taken off the cross. There's no evidence of anyone in history surviving a Roman crucifixion.

Just ask Jesus if He is real. Be patient. Wait 6 months. You will see.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Are Alternate Theories Put Forth By Non-Believers Plausible?

The Bible says that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then the Christian faith is worthless (1 Cor. 15:17). However, if Jesus did rise from the dead then we know Jesus can keep his promise to give everyone who follows him eternal life (1 John 2:25). But how can we know that Jesus really rose...

shop.catholic.com

 

[alaskanseminole]

Why not? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Sure, you are right that believers can add their belief to the mix. But there's no reason for anyone else to.

As you doubtless know, there are other ways to study the bible that don't require faith, as well. The bible as literature. The bible as history. And so on.

It's an important book that has had and still does have a huge influence on human civilization. Good and bad. So it's worth studying. But faith isn't required.

All of those are true, but my point is "if" you want to have an actual relationship with God, there must be the faith/belief/acceptance aspect otherwise it's simply an academic endeavor, and God is a relational being who created relational beings (in His own image). I thoroughly enjoy the theology, archeology, academic aspects of the Bible; however, if I spend my life exploring the Bible with my head (never applying the heart), then I will miss what God wants to teach me which, through the Holy Spirit, will be different from person to person. <------this is the part that's difficult to explain as Mother Teresa said.

But, yes, the Bible, in and of itself, is worth studying, but without Faith, a person will miss the real point.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Jesus was definitely dead when taken off the cross. There's no evidence of anyone in history surviving a Roman crucifixion.

Just ask Jesus if He is real. Be patient. Wait 6 months. You will see.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Are Alternate Theories Put Forth By Non-Believers Plausible?

The Bible says that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then the Christian faith is worthless (1 Cor. 15:17). However, if Jesus did rise from the dead then we know Jesus can keep his promise to give everyone who follows him eternal life (1 John 2:25). But how can we know that Jesus really rose...

shop.catholic.com

It's my understanding that the resurrection of Jesus was not part of the early canon. Your link cites Corinthians. Probably written in the 50s by a guy who never met Jesus in person. Hardly what would be considered good evidence in other disciplines.

A thousand years from now, alien scientists researching the extinct human species on a war and climate ravaged Earth might stumble across the writings of Robert Parker. They could be forgiven for believing Spenser was a real person with many interesting exploits. But they would be wrong.

 

[BrianNole777]

It's my understanding that the resurrection of Jesus was not part of the early canon. Your link cites Corinthians. Probably written in the 50s by a guy who never met Jesus in person. Hardly what would be considered good evidence in other disciplines.

A thousand years from now, alien scientists researching the extinct human species on a war and climate ravaged Earth might stumble across the writings of Robert Parker. They could be forgiven for believing Spenser was a real person with many interesting exploits. But they would be wrong.

The resurrection was preached in Jerusalem almost immediately after it happened.

If it were a myth, it would have been preached somewhere else, away from the site.

Paul knew all the Apostles and made sure his preaching matched there preaching.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The resurrection was preached in Jerusalem almost immediately after it happened.

If by preached, you mean claimed by a few, maybe that's true. But I'd love to see your links.

And if it was generally believed at that time, why doesn't it appear in all the early books of the NT?

I mean those guys weren't immune from making things up - Jesus having conversations with demons, for example - so why silent on the resurrection?

 

[BrianNole777]

If by preached, you mean claimed by a few, maybe that's true. But I'd love to see your links.

And if it was generally believed at that time, why doesn't it appear in all the early books of the NT?

I mean those guys weren't immune from making things up - Jesus having conversations with demons, for example - so why silent on the resurrection?

Demons are real, I believe. And I know Ivy League graduates with personal experience that believe they are real, too.

There's a scholar named N.T. Wright that has written many good books. One is on "Paul." You may be interested in it.

Anyways, I've pretty much completely given up on trying to persuade people of anything. It seems like it never works.

What do you think?

Amazon product ASIN B078XMLH2X

Resurrection

Resurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption of life. The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that all men whether elect or reprobate, "will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear about with them" (cap. "Firmiter").

www.catholic.com

 

[alaskanseminole]

It's my understanding that the resurrection of Jesus was not part of the early canon. Your link cites Corinthians. Probably written in the 50s by a guy who never met Jesus in person. Hardly what would be considered good evidence in other disciplines.

Actually, 50 years later via oral tradition is considered very reliable. People try to compare today's "telephone game" to how information was passed back then. "Man, I can't even remember what happened yesterday much last a few years back" isn't the right approach. Heck, too many people try to examine the Bible through both the lens of modern times and American culture.

How Reliable were the Early Church's Oral Traditions? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

How reliable were the early church’s oral traditions? In terms of assessing the reliability of the Gospels, this is an extremely important question. First century Jewish culture was what scholars today would call an “orally dominated culture.” While a certain percentage of people could read and...

reknew.org

https://www.thecollegechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/HANDOUTS-Is-Scripture-Reliable.pdf

 

[HawkRugged17]