|
Post by Gene on Dec 20, 2014 10:49:00 GMT -5
Does Santa Claus inspire children to write letters to him at Christmas time?
Or is it the child's belief in Santa that is the inspiration for letter-writing?
The first implies that Santa is real and acting; in the second, inspiration can happen whether Santa is real or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 12:20:14 GMT -5
Does Santa Claus inspire children to write letters to him at Christmas time? Or is it the child's belief in Santa that is the inspiration for letter-writing? The first implies that Santa is real and acting; in the second, inspiration can happen whether Santa is real or not. Gene, are you "a santaist" or an "asantaist?"
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 20, 2014 12:58:29 GMT -5
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa ClausDoes Santa Claus inspire children to write letters to him at Christmas time? Or is it the child's belief in Santa that is the inspiration for letter-writing? The first implies that Santa is real and acting; in the second, inspiration can happen whether Santa is real or not. I would also tend to make this kind of distinction in my mind. But then the problem is determining what "real" is. I was about 12 years old when I first came across a reprint of the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus) It made a lot of sense to me then; it still does.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 20, 2014 13:45:00 GMT -5
What Hat, you're probably right about being able to look at what different religions and religious thought offers to a broader spectrum of people. I have studied the history and philosophy of many religions and for me they are all basically the same when you clear away all the 'fluff' or rules, doctrine etc. As a people we have had to figure out what worked to live together in relative harmony in order to survive. Religious belief, I believe, just came out of those sets of rules. The golden rule is in every religion really. I see the world turning away from the more traditional religions because of what they teach and who they say God is. Many people are no longer willing to worship a God that is judgmental enough to send people to hell or to kill all people on earth except for one family etc. All the things that they are required to believe also require a pretty strong faith or ability to overlook the things that have been proven to no longer be possible in a physical world. Many don't want that kind of religion anymore. They want something that doesn't cause so much cognitive dissonance. There is already enough of that in our daily decisions as Sharon Arnold has pointed out in an earlier post. God doesn't need to be too. So there are many people that are more than willing to accept Neale's understanding of God because that God isn't hard to understand, he doesn't send people to hell, and he doesn't make people feel like they can never be good enough. Just some of the reasons I see religions on a much broader basis. I don't like any of them for myself, but can understand that they will draw people. I don't really understand why one has to only be part of one religious sect though in order to get any meaning from the concept of God? If you study them all, or some of them anyway, you will probably see that the real meaning is what I mentioned in the beginning of this post, they are a way to get along, feel protected and draw some comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 20, 2014 18:37:40 GMT -5
Does Santa Claus inspire children to write letters to him at Christmas time? Or is it the child's belief in Santa that is the inspiration for letter-writing? The first implies that Santa is real and acting; in the second, inspiration can happen whether Santa is real or not. Gene, are you "a santaist" or an "asantaist?" Oh, I'm definitely a santaist. He comes every year. Just last week, he came wearing a postman's uniform, and delivered an unexpected package from amazon.com!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 4:35:32 GMT -5
Gene, are you "a santaist" or an "asantaist?" Oh, I'm definitely a santaist. He comes every year. Just last week, he came wearing a postman's uniform, and delivered an unexpected package from amazon.com! I just love hearing the heartfelt testimonies of fellow believers!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 21, 2014 23:42:26 GMT -5
Does Santa Claus inspire children to write letters to him at Christmas time? Or is it the child's belief in Santa that is the inspiration for letter-writing? The first implies that Santa is real and acting; in the second, inspiration can happen whether Santa is real or not. I don't think so. To you, there is a difference because you know Santa Claus does not actually exist. From the child's perspective I see no difference between being inspired by a belief in Santa Claus, and being inspired by Santa Claus. If you mean that there is no Santa Claus to tell the child to write, that is true, but the child knows he can't go to the North Pole to verify this. She'll have to do with the poor excuse of a Santa who is making a few extra bucks at the mall over the Christmas season. From the perspective of Bible writers there is no difference between being inspired by God and being inspired by a belief in God, same as a child writing to Santa.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 21, 2014 23:49:33 GMT -5
What Hat, you're probably right about being able to look at what different religions and religious thought offers to a broader spectrum of people. I have studied the history and philosophy of many religions and for me they are all basically the same when you clear away all the 'fluff' or rules, doctrine etc. As a people we have had to figure out what worked to live together in relative harmony in order to survive. Religious belief, I believe, just came out of those sets of rules. The golden rule is in every religion really. I see the world turning away from the more traditional religions because of what they teach and who they say God is. Many people are no longer willing to worship a God that is judgmental enough to send people to hell or to kill all people on earth except for one family etc. All the things that they are required to believe also require a pretty strong faith or ability to overlook the things that have been proven to no longer be possible in a physical world. Many don't want that kind of religion anymore. They want something that doesn't cause so much cognitive dissonance. There is already enough of that in our daily decisions as Sharon Arnold has pointed out in an earlier post. God doesn't need to be too. So there are many people that are more than willing to accept Neale's understanding of God because that God isn't hard to understand, he doesn't send people to hell, and he doesn't make people feel like they can never be good enough. Just some of the reasons I see religions on a much broader basis. I don't like any of them for myself, but can understand that they will draw people. I don't really understand why one has to only be part of one religious sect though in order to get any meaning from the concept of God? If you study them all, or some of them anyway, you will probably see that the real meaning is what I mentioned in the beginning of this post, they are a way to get along, feel protected and draw some comfort. Well I think that if you stand outside all religions and synthesize their teachings you'll see them as "a way to get along, feel protected and draw some comfort". And it won't go any further than that. A religion is more an experience than a system of knowledge, and that is part of the explanation. The other is that as a system of knowledge, a religion is a closed, self-referential system. It can take many years to "get". So it's difficult to make much sense of things across multiple religions or all religions.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 22, 2014 0:32:29 GMT -5
Whathat, may I first say that this is a much more informative response. Responding in no particular order, I can't really disagree with anything you say in your third paragraph. The only point I am tempted to make is to ask you to clarify how you know that other people are misled but that you are not misled. Is there any reason why you should not be as susceptible to being unknowingly misled as anyone else? I say that as a man who has been unknowingly misled. As regards your first paragraph, you make the statement "The Bible writers were inspired by God in the sense of having a conversation with Him". I would say that there is absolutely no more evidence to support the view that the bible writers were inspired by God than there is to support the view that the bible authors were inspired only by their belief in (their) God. As regards paragraph 2' I think it may be worth pointing out that I too have had conversations with (what I understood at the time to be) God. Of course what I understood to be a conversation with God, I understand now to have been a conversation with a God which I had created in my head as a result of conditioning by the 2x2 system, by my exposure to the bible, by my parents, by my schooling and by society in general. I understand now that the conversations I thought I was having with (this) 'God' were not in fact conversations but rather merely exchanges of thoughts within my mind. The God which I was conversing with was not a real and independent entity with an independent mind and thoughts but rather a entity created in my head whose thoughts were solely dependent on the Christian God/bible related influences which I had previously absorbed and which consequently formed the basis of the entity which I had created in my mind. It is not so much that I do not accept any explanation that does not involve a "connect the dots" physical explanation of how God's thoughts migrate to our thoughts, but rather that I have come to realise that the thoughts that we understand to being the thoughts of a real, external, independent thinking, soul saving, loving, caring God are in fact not the thoughts of such a God at all but rather are merely our own thoughts which as a result of our bible based conditioning we interpret to be coming from a real, live, external God, irrespective of the fact that they only ever occur inside our head. Of course I would be interested in the details of any recent conversations you have had with God (what God said to you and what you said to God) and whether you can explain why God says such different things to you than He says to my Muslim neighbour who when in conversation with God is told clearly and without ambiguity that there is no God but Allah, that Allah is great, that Mohammad is his prophet and that he should set his face towards Mecca and kneel in prayer five times a day? Matt10 Thanks, again, Matt.
You can summarize ideas very well: "The God which I was conversing with was not a real and independent entity with an independent mind and thoughts but rather a entity created in my head whose thoughts were solely dependent on the Christian God/bible related influences which I had previously absorbed and which consequently formed the basis of the entity which I had created in my mind."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2014 3:17:33 GMT -5
Thanks, again, Matt.
You can summarize ideas very well: "The God which I was conversing with was not a real and independent entity with an independent mind and thoughts but rather a entity created in my head whose thoughts were solely dependent on the Christian God/bible related influences which I had previously absorbed and which consequently formed the basis of the entity which I had created in my mind." DMG, I think it is much easier to explain things when one has experience of both being a believer and a non-believer. It broadens one's perspective I think. Most on the board appear only to have ever been one or other during their adult life and this, I think, may inhibit their ability to understand certain things. A man who has never believed cannot grasp the great power of God while a man who has only ever believed can't quite comprehend just how flawed his belief in God really is. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 22, 2014 6:47:58 GMT -5
Does Santa Claus inspire children to write letters to him at Christmas time? Or is it the child's belief in Santa that is the inspiration for letter-writing? The first implies that Santa is real and acting; in the second, inspiration can happen whether Santa is real or not. I don't think so. To you, there is a difference because you know Santa Claus does not actually exist. From the child's perspective I see no difference between being inspired by a belief in Santa Claus, and being inspired by Santa Claus. If you mean that there is no Santa Claus to tell the child to write, that is true, but the child knows he can't go to the North Pole to verify this. She'll have to do with the poor excuse of a Santa who is making a few extra bucks at the mall over the Christmas season. From the perspective of Bible writers there is no difference between being inspired by God and being inspired by a belief in God, same as a child writing to Santa. I think I see what you're saying. If a person has no knowledge of the veracity of the existence of the entity from which they claim to draw inspiration, then there is no difference between being inspired by that entity and being inspired by the belief in that entity. But to an all-knowing external observer, like our own Rational, lacking a belief in the existence of the entity, he can safely say it was belief in the entity rather than the entity itself that caused the inspiration. Another analogy comes to mind: Patient taking placebo antidepressant medication experiences amelioration of his symptoms. Ruling out all other causes but two for the sake of argument, was the relief due to the effect of the pill or the patient's belief in the effect of the pill?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 22, 2014 8:50:45 GMT -5
I don't think so. To you, there is a difference because you know Santa Claus does not actually exist. From the child's perspective I see no difference between being inspired by a belief in Santa Claus, and being inspired by Santa Claus. If you mean that there is no Santa Claus to tell the child to write, that is true, but the child knows he can't go to the North Pole to verify this. She'll have to do with the poor excuse of a Santa who is making a few extra bucks at the mall over the Christmas season. From the perspective of Bible writers there is no difference between being inspired by God and being inspired by a belief in God, same as a child writing to Santa. I think I see what you're saying. If a person has no knowledge of the veracity of the existence of the entity from which they claim to draw inspiration, then there is no difference between being inspired by that entity and being inspired by the belief in that entity. But to an all-knowing external observer, like our own Rational, lacking a belief in the existence of the entity, he can safely say it was belief in the entity rather than the entity itself that caused the inspiration. Another analogy comes to mind: Patient taking placebo antidepressant medication experiences amelioration of his symptoms. Ruling out all other causes but two for the sake of argument, was the relief due to the effect of the pill or the patient's belief in the effect of the pill? Superb analogy. If he does get better, and the study administrators do not let him know, he cannot tell if he received the placebo or the actual drug.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 22, 2014 11:04:10 GMT -5
What Hat, you're probably right about being able to look at what different religions and religious thought offers to a broader spectrum of people. I have studied the history and philosophy of many religions and for me they are all basically the same when you clear away all the 'fluff' or rules, doctrine etc. As a people we have had to figure out what worked to live together in relative harmony in order to survive. Religious belief, I believe, just came out of those sets of rules. The golden rule is in every religion really. I see the world turning away from the more traditional religions because of what they teach and who they say God is. Many people are no longer willing to worship a God that is judgmental enough to send people to hell or to kill all people on earth except for one family etc. All the things that they are required to believe also require a pretty strong faith or ability to overlook the things that have been proven to no longer be possible in a physical world. Many don't want that kind of religion anymore. They want something that doesn't cause so much cognitive dissonance. There is already enough of that in our daily decisions as Sharon Arnold has pointed out in an earlier post. God doesn't need to be too. So there are many people that are more than willing to accept Neale's understanding of God because that God isn't hard to understand, he doesn't send people to hell, and he doesn't make people feel like they can never be good enough. Just some of the reasons I see religions on a much broader basis. I don't like any of them for myself, but can understand that they will draw people. I don't really understand why one has to only be part of one religious sect though in order to get any meaning from the concept of God? If you study them all, or some of them anyway, you will probably see that the real meaning is what I mentioned in the beginning of this post, they are a way to get along, feel protected and draw some comfort. Well I think that if you stand outside all religions and synthesize their teachings you'll see them as "a way to get along, feel protected and draw some comfort". And it won't go any further than that. A religion is more an experience than a system of knowledge, and that is part of the explanation. The other is that as a system of knowledge, a religion is a closed, self-referential system. It can take many years to "get". So it's difficult to make much sense of things across multiple religions or all religions. It shouldn't take any time at all to 'get' that all religions tell us to love one another. The rest imo is man made rules and doctrines that have no place in spirituality at all. And, all religious thought teaches love for one another.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 22, 2014 11:10:47 GMT -5
I think I see what you're saying. If a person has no knowledge of the veracity of the existence of the entity from which they claim to draw inspiration, then there is no difference between being inspired by that entity and being inspired by the belief in that entity. But to an all-knowing external observer, like our own Rational, lacking a belief in the existence of the entity, he can safely say it was belief in the entity rather than the entity itself that caused the inspiration. Another analogy comes to mind: Patient taking placebo antidepressant medication experiences amelioration of his symptoms. Ruling out all other causes but two for the sake of argument, was the relief due to the effect of the pill or the patient's belief in the effect of the pill? Superb analogy. If he does get better, and the study administrators do not let him know, he cannot tell if he received the placebo or the actual drug. Which tells us that it's all in the power of the mind to believe. Nothing there but it can cure. Nothing there but it can save. It's the thought that counts?? Maybe the Eastern philosophy that it's all Maya is right. We create our reality through our thoughts and it's all an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 23, 2014 9:16:47 GMT -5
Well I think that if you stand outside all religions and synthesize their teachings you'll see them as "a way to get along, feel protected and draw some comfort". And it won't go any further than that. A religion is more an experience than a system of knowledge, and that is part of the explanation. The other is that as a system of knowledge, a religion is a closed, self-referential system. It can take many years to "get". So it's difficult to make much sense of things across multiple religions or all religions. It shouldn't take any time at all to 'get' that all religions tell us to love one another. The rest imo is man made rules and doctrines that have no place in spirituality at all. And, all religious thought teaches love for one another. I mostly agree with you. The central message is to do good and be good, IMO, which is the same as what you said. So just believe that then. What do we need religion for? Religion provides a supporting structure for that basic lesson... one way of looking at that. That structure is not superfluous but essential because man is a social animal and an intelligent questioning animal. The problematic aspects of religion, without going deeply into what those are, mean that religion is often co-opted to support or foster hatred, the very opposite of its most basic teachings.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 23, 2014 9:22:36 GMT -5
Superb analogy. If he does get better, and the study administrators do not let him know, he cannot tell if he received the placebo or the actual drug. Which tells us that it's all in the power of the mind to believe. Nothing there but it can cure. Nothing there but it can save. It's the thought that counts?? Maybe the Eastern philosophy that it's all Maya is right. We create our reality through our thoughts and it's all an illusion. Well I'm not saying that, although you can. Sticking to Gene's analogy my feeling is that the patient will draw his own conclusions as to which he received, even without any actual information that lets him know. Such are the basic questions of life... we answer them through faith ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 23, 2014 9:41:08 GMT -5
It shouldn't take any time at all to 'get' that all religions tell us to love one another. The rest imo is man made rules and doctrines that have no place in spirituality at all. And, all religious thought teaches love for one another. I mostly agree with you. The central message is to do good and be good, IMO, which is the same as what you said. So just believe that then. What do we need religion for? Religion provides a supporting structure for that basic lesson... one way of looking at that. That structure is not superfluous but essential because man is a social animal and an intelligent questioning animal. The problematic aspects of religion, without going deeply into what those are, mean that religion is often co-opted to support or foster hatred, the very opposite of its most basic teachings. Well then, if the problem with forming a religion is that they eventually foster hate, why form them at all? What is wrong with being 'one humanity' that socializes and doesn't form tight knit little groups that end up hating each other because over time they develop and us/you mentality? Is there a need for groups to form religious rules and doctrines when non believers seem to do quite well. Did you happen to catch xna's posting of the atheists 10 commandments. You don't have to be religious, form a religion to do good in the world, love each other no matter who they are etc. I think that religions cause more division and make it easier for hatred of other groups to form. Look at how Muslims and Christians feel about each other. Even Jews and Christians have only grudgingly allied mostly because Christians believe they need the Jews in order for the end times to happen. Is that the way we want our world to be?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 23, 2014 9:43:34 GMT -5
Which tells us that it's all in the power of the mind to believe. Nothing there but it can cure. Nothing there but it can save. It's the thought that counts?? Maybe the Eastern philosophy that it's all Maya is right. We create our reality through our thoughts and it's all an illusion. Well I'm not saying that, although you can. Sticking to Gene's analogy my feeling is that the patient will draw his own conclusions as to which he received, even without any actual information that lets him know. Such are the basic questions of life... we answer them through faith ultimately. So why do you think a placebo works? If it doesn't have any active ingredient to 'cure' how come it cures? Makes sense it's the belief in the 'cure' that inspires the body to get better even though there is no reason to because it never had the 'cure' introduced into the body.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 23, 2014 10:32:47 GMT -5
I mostly agree with you. The central message is to do good and be good, IMO, which is the same as what you said. So just believe that then. What do we need religion for? Religion provides a supporting structure for that basic lesson... one way of looking at that. That structure is not superfluous but essential because man is a social animal and an intelligent questioning animal. The problematic aspects of religion, without going deeply into what those are, mean that religion is often co-opted to support or foster hatred, the very opposite of its most basic teachings. Well then, if the problem with forming a religion is that they eventually foster hate, why form them at all? What is wrong with being 'one humanity' that socializes and doesn't form tight knit little groups that end up hating each other because over time they develop and us/you mentality? Is there a need for groups to form religious rules and doctrines when non believers seem to do quite well. Did you happen to catch xna's posting of the atheists 10 commandments. You don't have to be religious, form a religion to do good in the world, love each other no matter who they are etc. I think that religions cause more division and make it easier for hatred of other groups to form. Look at how Muslims and Christians feel about each other. Even Jews and Christians have only grudgingly allied mostly because Christians believe they need the Jews in order for the end times to happen. Is that the way we want our world to be? The lion's share of Christians and Muslims are good people, and their religion makes them better. There are definitely individuals who are, as individuals, made worse by their religion. One has only to consider the effect of radical recruiting imams on the Muslim youth in Western countries and in modern Arab states for an extreme example. Shedding religion doesn't shed human hatred, unfortunately. Atheists can be just as overbearing and extreme about their beliefs as any religious extremists. And extremists are also to be found in the worlds of industry, the environment, politics, sports and music. There are definitely psychoses that are particular to religion; psychosis seems to be culturally conditioned, so that makes other kinds of extremists different perhaps, but no reason to think they are any better.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 23, 2014 10:48:40 GMT -5
Well I'm not saying that, although you can. Sticking to Gene's analogy my feeling is that the patient will draw his own conclusions as to which he received, even without any actual information that lets him know. Such are the basic questions of life... we answer them through faith ultimately. So why do you think a placebo works? If it doesn't have any active ingredient to 'cure' how come it cures? Makes sense it's the belief in the 'cure' that inspires the body to get better even though there is no reason to because it never had the 'cure' introduced into the body. Now if we are talking religion how do you separate the 'cure' from 'belief in the cure'? Our concept of a God as an objective entity is rather nebulous anyway. We used to think of Him being in the heavens above, but now that we've explored space that does not work. The real question to me is whether we believe in an after-life or not. And if we do have one, we are bound to encounter someone or something. I'm about 98% on there being an after-life although there are moments when I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 23, 2014 13:06:19 GMT -5
Oh, I'm definitely a santaist. He comes every year. Just last week, he came wearing a postman's uniform, and delivered an unexpected package from amazon.com! youtu.be/dCOf6Su0Yvw
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 13:57:53 GMT -5
The real question to me is whether we believe in an after-life or not. And if we do have one, we are bound to encounter someone or something. I'm about 98% on there being an after-life although there are moments when I wonder. Whathat, for me the more interesting question is why we believe in the afterlife, or indeed why we believe in the type of afterlife that we believe in. If a man tells me he believes the earth is flat because he has been to the edge of it and peered over, or that he believes in Father Christmas because he has witnessed a reindeer drawn sleigh landing on his neighbour’s roof and a short fat man dressed in a red suit disappearing down his neighbour’s chimney with a great big sack of goods, then that is much more interesting than him merely telling me what he believes. Making a statement that you believe in the afterlife is of little interest without you explaining why you believe in the afterlife; you could just as readily state tomorrow that you have ceased to believe in the afterlife. And what then? As to your previous response (Dec 20 2.46pm), I think the issue of the difference between being inspired by a belief in God and being inspired by God has pretty much been dealt with. As to the reality of belief, I would suggest that the fact that something feels very real, whether it be the presence of God (which at one time felt real to me) or Jesus’s death on the Cross (which now feels real to you), does not make it real. As to your statement that Jesus’s death on the cross is very emotional and goes to the core of your being and feeling for life, for the people you know and for humanity, I would point out that for most of humanity throughout most of history, barely anyone had ever heard of Jesus's death on the cross and consequently it had absolutely no meaning for them just as it no longer has any meaning for me. It’s difficult for me now to accept that what is clearly a far-fetched story in an ancient book should be taken seriously. As to your point about Christians and homosexuality, I think that your point supports my view that the God which we converse with is merely a creation within our minds; some Christians create a God who abhors homosexuality while others create a God who has no particular issue with it. It is no surprise that a person rarely disagrees with the God which he creates as the God he creates is based on the creator’s own prejudices. It isn’t a case that you are right in your interpretation of what God thinks of homosexuality and those other Christians are wrong (or the other way round), it’s just that two different Gods have been created with two different views, neither of which are real but each of which feels just as real as the other. Finally as to the Leonard Cohen song, I can’t imagine why any atheist would get angry over this although I don’t classify myself as an atheist and therefore certainly don’t speak on behalf of atheists. I just listened to the song three times and can’t see Jesus on the cross in it anywhere but then such is the beauty of songs such as this is that the listener can make up their own mind as to the meaning for them. Here’s the interpretation of Howard Jacobson (also Jewish I think) in the UK Independent – this is just about as far from Jesus on the cross as can be. Matt10 “ Those great lines from the song “Anthem”. Ring the bells etc. Forget your perfect offering. There’s a crack – a crack in everything. It’s like a reprimand to people of my temperament – life’s complainants, eroticists of disappointment, lovers only of what’s flawless and overwrought. Could he be singing this to me? You expect too much, mister. You are too unforgiving. Not everything works out, not everything is great, and not everyone must like what you like. I’ve been taught this lesson before. I remember reading an essay by the novelist Mario Vargas Llosa in which he argues for the necessity of vulgarity in serious literature. Thomas Hardy said a writer needed to be imperfectly grammatical some of the time. Mailer told an audience that not everybody wanted to ride in a Lamborghini. And now here’s Leonard Cohen saying the same thing. Forget your perfect offering. There’s a crack… And then comes another, still more wonderful, clinching line – “That’s how the light gets in.” Savour that! At a stroke, weakness becomes strength and fault becomes virtue. I feel as though original sin has just been re-explained to me. There was no fall. We were born flawed. Flawed is how we were designed to be. Which means we don’t need redeeming after all. Light? Why go searching for light? The light already shines from us. It got in through our failings.”
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 23, 2014 14:16:26 GMT -5
The real question to me is whether we believe in an after-life or not. And if we do have one, we are bound to encounter someone or something. I'm about 98% on there being an after-life although there are moments when I wonder. Whathat, for me the more interesting question is why we believe in the afterlife, or indeed why we believe in the type of afterlife that we believe in. If a man tells me he believes the earth is flat because he has been to the edge of it and peered over, or that he believes in Father Christmas because he has witnessed a reindeer drawn sleigh landing on his neighbour’s roof and a short fat man dressed in a red suit disappearing down his neighbour’s chimney with a great big sack of goods, then that is much more interesting than him merely telling me what he believes. Making a statement that you believe in the afterlife is of little interest without you explaining why you believe in the afterlife; you could just as readily state tomorrow that you have ceased to believe in the afterlife. And what then? As to your previous response (Dec 20 2.46pm), I think the issue of the difference between being inspired by a belief in God and being inspired by God has pretty much been dealt with. As to the reality of belief, I would suggest that the fact that something feels very real, whether it be the presence of God (which at one time felt real to me) or Jesus’s death on the Cross (which now feels real to you), does not make it real. As to your statement that Jesus’s death on the cross is very emotional and goes to the core of your being and feeling for life, for the people you know and for humanity, I would point out that for most of humanity throughout most of history, barely anyone had ever heard of Jesus's death on the cross and consequently it had absolutely no meaning for them just as it no longer has any meaning for me. It’s difficult for me now to accept that what is clearly a far-fetched story in an ancient book should be taken seriously. As to your point about Christians and homosexuality, I think that your point supports my view that the God which we converse with is merely a creation within our minds; some Christians create a God who abhors homosexuality while others create a God who has no particular issue with it. It is no surprise that a person rarely disagrees with the God which he creates as the God he creates is based on the creator’s own prejudices. It isn’t a case that you are right in your interpretation of what God thinks of homosexuality and those other Christians are wrong (or the other way round), it’s just that two different Gods have been created with two different views, neither of which are real but each of which feel just as real as the other. Finally as to the Leonard Cohen song, I can’t imagine why any atheist would get angry over this although I don’t classify myself as an atheist and therefore certainly don’t speak on behalf of atheists. I just listened to the song three times and can’t see Jesus on the cross in it anywhere but then such is the beauty of songs such as this is that the listener can make up their own mind as to the meaning for them. Here’s the interpretation of Howard Jacobson (also Jewish I think) in the UK Independent – this is just about as far from Jesus on the cross as can be. Matt10 “ Those great lines from the song “Anthem”. Ring the bells etc. Forget your perfect offering. There’s a crack – a crack in everything. It’s like a reprimand to people of my temperament – life’s complainants, eroticists of disappointment, lovers only of what’s flawless and overwrought. Could he be singing this to me? You expect too much, mister. You are too unforgiving. Not everything works out, not everything is great, and not everyone must like what you like. I’ve been taught this lesson before. I remember reading an essay by the novelist Mario Vargas Llosa in which he argues for the necessity of vulgarity in serious literature. Thomas Hardy said a writer needed to be imperfectly grammatical some of the time. Mailer told an audience that not everybody wanted to ride in a Lamborghini. And now here’s Leonard Cohen saying the same thing. Forget your perfect offering. There’s a crack… And then comes another, still more wonderful, clinching line – “That’s how the light gets in.” Savour that! At a stroke, weakness becomes strength and fault becomes virtue. I feel as though original sin has just been re-explained to me. There was no fall. We were born flawed. Flawed is how we were designed to be. Which means we don’t need redeeming after all. Light? Why go searching for light? The light already shines from us. It got in through our failings.” You still seem to be striving for some kind of objective truth out of what are highly personal questions. You once believed, now you don't. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? Who knows. Some people do fashion a God of their own choosing, but the process is still subject to certain logical evaluations, mainly determining whether there is consistency in the belief. I find it inconsistent for people to say that God is loving, and then say that God hates homosexual behaviour. In order for homophobic Christians to maintain their view of God as loving, it becomes very important to them to view homosexual behaviour as a choice. According to these Christians it simply can't be natural or ingrained for someone to be homosexual, and some Christians spend an inordinate amount of time on such issues as whether homosexual behaviour is genetic; they insist that it is not. Once Christians do learn that people just are homosexual, and they come out of the box with a given sexual orientation, then often they become gay-affirming Christians in order to maintain their a priori belief that God is loving. A metaphor like Leonard Cohen's "there is a crack in everything" can be taken in many different directions. I take it in the direction of Derrida's ideas on deconstruction. The idea is that any system of knowledge, especially totalizing ideologies or religions, always have internal inconsistencies. (Apparently mathematical systems do too unless they are completely trivial). One places pressure on those internal inconsistencies, the cracks as it were, to break the system down. That is how the light gets in; how we achieve truth. You can see how I did that in the previous paragraph as regards homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 23, 2014 14:36:03 GMT -5
Well then, if the problem with forming a religion is that they eventually foster hate, why form them at all? What is wrong with being 'one humanity' that socializes and doesn't form tight knit little groups that end up hating each other because over time they develop and us/you mentality? Is there a need for groups to form religious rules and doctrines when non believers seem to do quite well. Did you happen to catch xna's posting of the atheists 10 commandments. You don't have to be religious, form a religion to do good in the world, love each other no matter who they are etc. I think that religions cause more division and make it easier for hatred of other groups to form. Look at how Muslims and Christians feel about each other. Even Jews and Christians have only grudgingly allied mostly because Christians believe they need the Jews in order for the end times to happen. Is that the way we want our world to be? The lion's share of Christians and Muslims are good people, and their religion makes them better. There are definitely individuals who are, as individuals, made worse by their religion. One has only to consider the effect of radical recruiting imams on the Muslim youth in Western countries and in modern Arab states for an extreme example. Shedding religion doesn't shed human hatred, unfortunately. Atheists can be just as overbearing and extreme about their beliefs as any religious extremists. And extremists are also to be found in the worlds of industry, the environment, politics, sports and music. There are definitely psychoses that are particular to religion; psychosis seems to be culturally conditioned, so that makes other kinds of extremists different perhaps, but no reason to think they are any better. I guess my thought is this. If you don't need a belief in God to be all the things a person is who does believe in God, why believe in God? It's not something that makes anyone better, because there are good and bad in religions, so it would seem it's the person's character to start with, not their belief in God?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 23, 2014 14:45:01 GMT -5
The lion's share of Christians and Muslims are good people, and their religion makes them better. There are definitely individuals who are, as individuals, made worse by their religion. One has only to consider the effect of radical recruiting imams on the Muslim youth in Western countries and in modern Arab states for an extreme example. Shedding religion doesn't shed human hatred, unfortunately. Atheists can be just as overbearing and extreme about their beliefs as any religious extremists. And extremists are also to be found in the worlds of industry, the environment, politics, sports and music. There are definitely psychoses that are particular to religion; psychosis seems to be culturally conditioned, so that makes other kinds of extremists different perhaps, but no reason to think they are any better. I guess my thought is this. If you don't need a belief in God to be all the things a person is who does believe in God, why believe in God? It's not something that makes anyone better, because there are good and bad in religions, so it would seem it's the person's character to start with, not their belief in God? Because you do.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 23, 2014 15:55:38 GMT -5
Thanks, again, Matt.
You can summarize ideas very well: "The God which I was conversing with was not a real and independent entity with an independent mind and thoughts but rather a entity created in my head whose thoughts were solely dependent on the Christian God/bible related influences which I had previously absorbed and which consequently formed the basis of the entity which I had created in my mind." DMG, I think it is much easier to explain things when one has experience of both being a believer and a non-believer. It broadens one's perspective I think. Most on the board appear only to have ever been one or other during their adult life and this, I think, may inhibit their ability to understand certain things. A man who has never believed cannot grasp the great power of God while a man who has only ever believed can't quite comprehend just how flawed his belief in God really is. Matt10 That is probably true, Matt. I hadn't thought of it that way. When you have been on you both sides of the fence like you & I, -you can better understand believers minds. In going through the process of becoming an un-believer you can see why people believe the ideas that they have & where their/your reasoning ins/was inaccurate.
I have a hard time understanding why so many people who were in the **THE TRUTH** use good reasoning in leaving that religion only to take up with another equally unreasonable belief! And the variety of those religious beliefs!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 23, 2014 16:00:51 GMT -5
I guess my thought is this. If you don't need a belief in God to be all the things a person is who does believe in God, why believe in God? It's not something that makes anyone better, because there are good and bad in religions, so it would seem it's the person's character to start with, not their belief in God? Because you do. Why? Just Because "Papa says so?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 16:06:01 GMT -5
You still seem to be striving for some kind of objective truth out of what are highly personal questions. You once believed, now you don't. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? Who knows. Some people do fashion a God of their own choosing, but the process is still subject to certain logical evaluations, mainly determining whether there is consistency in the belief. I find it inconsistent for people to say that God is loving, and then say that God hates homosexual behaviour. In order for homophobic Christians to maintain their view of God as loving, it becomes very important to them to view homosexual behaviour as a choice. According to these Christians it simply can't be natural or ingrained for someone to be homosexual, and some Christians spend an inordinate amount of time on such issues as whether homosexual behaviour is genetic; they insist that it is not. Once Christians do learn that people just are homosexual, and they come out of the box with a given sexual orientation, then often they become gay-affirming Christians in order to maintain their a priori belief that God is loving. A metaphor like Leonard Cohen's "there is a crack in everything" can be taken in many different directions. I take it in the direction of Derrida's ideas on deconstruction. The idea is that any system of knowledge, especially totalizing ideologies or religions, always have internal inconsistencies. (Apparently mathematical systems do too unless they are completely trivial). One places pressure on those internal inconsistencies, the cracks as it were, to break the system down. That is how the light gets in; how we achieve truth. You can see how I did that in the previous paragraph as regards homosexuality. Whathat, I make no apology for striving for objective truth. It seems to me to be an honourable thing to strive for. I find that many here are only interested in promoting their own version of truth and (often) in seeking to persuade others to accept it. By the way I don’t think I actually asked you any questions, highly personal or otherwise, this time. Meanwhile as to whether I was wrong then or wrong now, there is no question in my mind that I was wrong then and am right now. From what you have written on this thread, I suspect you have a lot more doubts surrounding your beliefs than I do. Matt10
|
|