Peter Boghossian wants to end faith in God!
Why does Peter Boghossian mean when he says faith is, "Delusional"?
Why does Peter Boghossian define faith as, "Pretending to know things you don't know"?
Why does Peter Boghossian say that people should replace faith with science and reason?
Why is Peter Boghossian trying to undermine religion by destroying faith?
Can Peter Boghossian become a follower of Jesus Christ?
Let's talk!
My "ready" question is why humanist like Dr. P. Boghossian does not understand that he and his "followers" worldview is simply just one additional worldview in our shared pluralistic society? I know that calling those who regularly attend Dr. Boghossian's assemblies followers belies what humanists consider themselves when they hold meetings, seminars, debates, and webinars. But, in appearance this all comes off very similar to modes of sharing together used by religious adherents.
Granted, much in western cultural understanding of faith and religion. can stand correcting. Granted there have been early Popes with pronouncements that pushed Martin Luther to rebel from the Holy Catholic Church, leading to the Protestant Reformation. To wit, today, we have a continuing splitting and sect-forming Church. Moreover, we have problems of individual sects traditions, customs, and exploding capitalism to strive to get beyond. Finally, a myriad of preaching and teaching voices volunteering to carry forward, to varying degrees and according to individual measures of faith, some portion of the total message of "The Gospel". With all these ongoing areas of concern: Is Dr. Boghossian correct to proliferate his worldview that the world would be better off without faith (in God)?
Take a listen to Dr. Peter Boghossian and then join the discussion.
Let's talk!
The site rules and the Four B’s will be enforced.
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
Tags
Who is online
418 visitors
Is this simply the aged-old pagan versus religion set of 'conflicts' stirring loudly in another era? Are Humanists and People of Faith two sides of the side 'coin'? All points of view are welcomed. For we are all involved in this topic one way or another. Inquiring minds covets your thoughts.
The site rules and the Four B’s will be enforced.
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
Believing in something that you cannot prove exists is the definition of deluisional.
I am a secular humanist. You obviously don't understand what a humanist is.
No.
Asking someone else to believe it might be delusional, and having no doubt might be delusional... but faith is real. It exists. It has touched billions of people. Summarily dismissing them all, as you do, is more than a little pretentious.
Epistte! I have read three of the Humanist Manifestos so I have a good working idea about humanism. Plus, I have access to "tons" of books and those pervasive Youtube videos on the evolving subject of humanism. Also Dr. P. Boghossian, above in the video, is speaking to a humanist group if I understood him correctly.
If you want to enlighten me, us, to what Humanism means to you: Go ahead, please.
You don't seem to understand that there is no single Humanist manifesto because Humanism is open to all debate and ever changing just as society is. Humanists are the stray cats of theism who refuse to be corraled into one single idea. You will never find a single Humanist leader or a mother church.
I acknowledged the 'maverick' nature of humanist activity when I mentioned the three humanist manifestos and evolving video materials on Youtube! Moreover, as exampled by Dr. Boghossian above, and the audience in attendance, somebodies are being 'fed.' After all, there is a man standing and doing so speaking into a microphone! What is an observer supposed to draw from the scene at a glance?
This man is merely giving his opinion. He is not telling others what they should believe in the manner of a minister or a priest. People can agree with him or they can reject his ideas because he is not an elected church leader who creates policy or dogma for all humanists to believe.
episttle, put your integrity on the line. Did you listen to the lecture at 2:00 - 2:22 where in a very compact space Dr. Boghossian said this. And I quote:
I have argued that one should abandon Faith and replace it with Reason. The lectures I have delivered have been somewhat limited in effectiveness because I think the Project of helping people to lose their faith and embrace reason can not be completed without some terminology linguistic change, and that is what I will propose this morning. So let's begin!
— Dr. Peter Boghossian.
What "Project"? And, in this twenty-two second window of speaking to an audience it is clear to me that Dr. Boghossian is teaching a room of humanists. Look again at the footage, please.
A non-Believer cannot "believe". That's redundant... but non-Believers constantly forget it.
The Venn diagram is two circles with no points in common.
If a non-Believer is intellectually honest, they may say only that they do not have faith; they cannot say that faith is unreal.
In my opinion, this is a good and important point! As I listen to Dr. Boghossian's expression of 'pretending to know thing you don't know' and his implication that all faith is a form of pretense, it occurs to me that he is lecturing from one side of the issue, and not from the other. That is, it escapes him that religious faith can be much more than shallow and delusion. Theology is rich in complexity. Faith (in God) has its own category; a category separate from these two other categories: 1. Science. 2. Reason.
Science takes known facts and expands on them always looking for new ways or NEW sciences, but they can only put a theory out and them try to prove it. If they CAN prove it, by a experiment, you get a theory, until other people do the same experiment and verify the same results, then you get a new rule or law and push science a little farther.
Fact, imagination, theory, experiment, fact.
Reason uses logic, first you get as much proven fact as you can find all the variables you can to factor in, then use logic to pick out the threads of cause and effect.
You use facts and logic to reach a conclusion.
Now religious faith, has no facts, logic, reason and certainly no science. Of course that puts religion in a class of it's own.
What about Jesus? Sad you asked. Most modern versions of "christianity" treat him like a idiot kid, a sucker made for the sole purpose of being sacrificed for YOUR sins, (wrong) and al that stuff against rich people and over-bearing authority and love can be ignored, he was young and shot his mouth off script and he was just a scape goat with only one use.
I don't understand how when you compare science, reason and faith against each other people go with faith and pretty much disregard the other two.
You are describing the process correctly, but your vocabulary isn't quite right. A scientific "theory" never becomes a "rule". It will always remain a "theory" because there is always a possibility that it will have to be changed in the light of new evidence or new analyses of existing evidence. That's why the "theory of relativity" is still called that, even though it has been proven over and over.
--
I agree. Faith and science are fundamentally different thought processes. Science requires evidence; faith does not. Science declares its content to be temporary, until better data and analysis are obtained; faith is permanent for all time. Science concerns the physical world; faith concerns the spiritual world.
The two process do not oppose each other. In fact, they never occupy the same space. There is no contradiction in a scientist requiring rigorous data in her professional activity, while needing none in her relation with God.
In fact... the trouble only starts when people try to use science in the spiritual world, or faith in the physical world. Either error leads to foolishness... which some people take very seriously. Quite often, people do not even know which process they are applying.
Hi Nightwalker! People of faith should not be against science and myth. Perhaps you are referring to something I wrote in my first comment above, "Are Humanists and People of Faith two sides of the side 'coin'?" The question is a statement about separate worldviews/disciplines. It is not a statement that science-reason-faith can not mix or even weave together in society (for we see this occurring all the time).
Religious folks and faith organizations who vainly attempt to invalidate science and logic are behaving foolish without excuse. Science, logic, and religion are not at war with one another. Though, we can all see there are "teams" of people attempting to exploit science, logic, and faith for their own worldly self-interests.
Hi, Bob, calbad
OK, we're in agreement, maybe I miss-understood the article or your comments.
Faith can also be a great filter, blocking out facts and reason and because faith has no roots or form it's a easy instrument to use to manipulate people and has been used for that purpose for thousands of years, and the reality of faith-extremists makes it kind of hard to have faith in faith. I can deal with science and reason much easier and one good thing you can say about science and reason, they don't have much in the way of extremists.
Merry Christmas to the both of you.
Hi, Nightwalker,
I don't think we're using "faith" in quite the same way. For me, "faith" is an internal phenomenon, which no one can manipulate. OTOH, "organized religion" or "the church" have often been altered to misuse their "community" aspect. Any community is somewhat tribal, and across history, organized religion has occasionally transformed Christ's "come to me" into "us versus them".
Oops. This one should read, "Hi Nightwalker! People of faith should not be against science and logic."
In the weirdest of fashions, the Church community, especially in the West turned faith into a "product" in many cases. Just say a few words and come on in and get your tithing books! I agree, Bob. We are writing about a deeper-seated and spiritual faith (I certainly am).
Guys, I will be out all day. Enjoy!
If one person can shake somebody's belief so much to cause you to stop believing, you belief wasn't that strong to begin with and should be re-evaluated.
Yours is a point that Jesus took up when he parabled: 1. "Wayside" faith. 2. "Stony" faith. 3. "Thorny" faith. 4. "Good ground" faith. Of course, grounded faith is one of endurance and brings forth a spiritual nature.
I'm not even going to pretend I know what any of those are. I don't follow any particular religion (reasons are for another time). I'm looking at it from more a personality point of view.
Thank you for the clarification, all the same. Here is the reference material with link. NOTE: I am not pushing this on you. Do receive it at your own pace if at all.
13 That day Jesus went out of the house and was sitting by the sea. 2 And [ a ]large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach. 3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 Others fell [ b ]among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8 And others fell on the good soil and *yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 He who has ears, [ c ]let him hear.”
Never crossed my mind.
Or if baking a cake is a threat to your belief you have a shitty belief system.
Epistte! That is off-topic discussion. It has it's own article. Do return to the subject of this article, please.
No shit.
The discussion epistte and I are having is about people with weak beliefs. It goes right along with my comment. She's correct. She's on point. She's respectful. She's HONEST. Something many here aren't.
Many people, especially the religious ones do not like my blunt statements. To their surprise, I am actually holding back my sarcasm. I could post what I actually think, including the sarcasm, but I'd surely be banned.
It seems that a growing number of people claiming to be adults cannot handle brutal honesty. They want language to be softened so that they don't become offended. The PC game has gotten pathetic.
You and I both. I know I've come pretty close a few times.
I have a couple very sarcastic one-liners that I save for just these times. I have created 2 memes from discussions that I have had on NT.
Tempting to put them up isn't it.
It won't be me who reports you. Go for it, or send it as a private message. You will not offend me.
this must be more of that "Christian Love" i keep hearing about... very interesting..
and yet, as one of his followers - you are supposed to follow his message (which that comment you made definitely doesn't fall under his message) and emulate certain qualities of him that created his message
this is the part where you excuse your comment and behavior by stating "we all sin" or some nonsense like that, thereby excusing and justifying your comment and behavior while providing a "get out of jail free" card by stating you'll just "repent" and "confess" to be forgiven and still go to heaven after your demise, right ? this way you can get away with being the opposite of the message you are supposed to follow - but still be "rewarded" upon your demise.
So you say...
thank you for perfectly illustrating my comment - you'll "repent" on Sunday, right ?
having a low opinion of someone as compared to stating "If I posted what I think about you I would probably be arrested." are definitely two different things. I can have a low opinion of someone, yet i won't be arrested for stating my low opinion (or what i think) - it looks like your comment indicates more than just a "low opinion" of someone and doesn't do a good job of illustrating that "Christian Love" either.
I'd like to hear what Iceman has to say about me. The fact that he might be arrested for it says much more about him than it does about me.
feelings is all it boils down to, which is ironic considering many of the conservative minded consider themselves so logical and consider the liberal minded to be the emotional ones. regardless - if you simply had a "low opinion" of Epistte, then you'd have no issues stating it and wouldn't be arrested for stating what you think, right ?
as i said earlier - having a low opinion of someone and stating "If I posted what I think about you I would probably be arrested." are definitely two different things. I can have a low opinion of someone, yet i won't be arrested for stating my low opinion (or what i think) - it looks like your comment indicates more than just a "low opinion" of someone and doesn't do a good job of illustrating that "Christian Love" either (but all you have to do is repent, all will be forgiven and you can continue illustrating the opposite of the message of Jesus while still being rewarded in the end, right ?)
these are your words, are they not ? "If I posted what I think about you I would probably be arrested." .... yet now you are backtracking... very interesting..
you absolutely do - its called "confession" and "repenting"... think about it.
sure you do, you can "repent" or "confess", there's your card and it completely exists, unless you are stating that "repenting" and "confessing" are two activities that don't exist ?
so we are back to square 1 - since you can easily state your low opinion of someone without getting arrested which means your statement implies something much worse and is contradictory to the teachings you are supposedly following (looks like you'll need your "get out of Hell free" cards of repenting and confessing, right ?)
pawning it off as an exaggeration is amusing at best, but i'll give you credit for trying
which is something you've done, and yet you just acted in a manner that is contradictory to the teaches you claim to follow - but there's hope ! just pull out your "Get Out Of Hell Free" cards of "repenting" and "confessing" and you will still be on track to get your reward after your unfortunate demise. Isn't it great ? you are being rewarded for bad behavior in the end.
ah, so you lied when you stated "If I posted what I think about you I would probably be arrested." ?
no games here, sorry for your luck, just pointing out the "Christian Love" that you are displaying for all to see.
What is your opinion of Humanism? Is it simply a separate category that can (and should) be respected like world religions?
I don't think the world's religions should be respected anymore. Not only are they mostly based on bronze-age myths and obvious utter nonsense, they are divisive, they pit groups of people against each other, fuel wars with their brainwashed followers, and allow people to commit horrible atrocities upon their fellow man with a clear conscience. The truth about who we are and where we came from unites us, science unites us.
I am a Secular Humanist. We are the opposite of theistic religion. We don't discriminate in bakeries, we don't steal from old people to buy mansions and jets, and we don't molest kids.
Oh, you didn't get the memo telling us that there can be no morality with belief in supernatural spirits?
What lies did he say? I didn't see any lies.
Off topic [ph]
Just change the lyrics and, have fun.
Off topic [ph]
And others involved. . . . Off-topic.
I'm curious, what exactly are those lies you refer to? Care to answer the question?
Humanism? Perhaps just another doctrine without the weight of the regimen, beads/baubles and the religious taxes?
Humanism is the opposite of theistic religion.
Certainly, humanism is a worldview. Similar to religious worldviews. Why does humanist Dr. P. Boghossian imply religion should end its faith value, leading to undermining religion itself? Any thoughts?
There is a posted video on this discussion topic.
I do not imply that it isn't. However, it is onto itself a belief system.
There is a 'sense' that religion has already undermined itself. False promises, false prophets and real profit.
It's more of a philosophy than a belief system.
Lots of institutions undermine themselves when sordid gain enters the equation! The Church is "of men and women" and "of capitalism" in the Western World. Mankind manipulates everything to its advantage.
Apparently, power of such magnitude over the hearts and minds of people is potent. Now, how do you think the rising 'tide' of humanism/humanists shall 'govern,' should they be given the chance? Corruption and its influences take generations to turn cancerous in a group setting, grow, and metastasize.
In a sense it could be surmised that religion on its own merit is simply another philosophy. Faith and fear can go hand in hand as the individual need arises.
Perhaps the basis of personal thought is the root of religion because that thought within oneself fears so much that itself is inconsequential, thereby seeking alliance with a greater power?
To discuss religion is complicated. Inherent faith is even more complicated. This is why in all religions, since their first beginnings, there is the promise of 'An Afterlife.'
Corruption and capitalism?
1. I believe capitalism is dead, murdered by Supply Side Economics. The corruption of faith, the corruption of governance is the result. If there is a 'mark of the beast,' wealth concentration is a sign that the free will of man is corrupted by that which desires to enslave him.
An act of faith, indeed..
Indeed.
Accurately!
I appreciate why some believe there is a supreme entity. Philosophically. However, the belief in a specific supreme entity - one that is ostensibly known and imbued with attributes simply because ancient men wrote this down on paper - is quite worthy of critical review.
To wit, why do people insist on going beyond belief in an unknown supreme entity? The more specific the belief the greater the leap.
Religion is connected to philosophy. But most religions take things a step further by requiring adherence or belief in some deity.
World religions are worldviews, like deism and naturalism.
It's very refreshing to hear a Christian state something like this.
As for the rest of your comment, I have to agree. Man has a capacity for greed that no other animals on Earth have. We also have an appetite for complete destruction.
Trout-G, we all see it in the religious systems of the world, especially in the western world. Wealth-seekers, empty of or limited in spirit, but steeped in leadership and charismatic qualities, have "infected" the Church world. Keep in mind, this infestation has been going on since Jesus issued a warning about false prophets appearing. It has been and will continue to be a complex 'walk' of faith throughout the Church Age, as our world is full of spiritual 'landmines.' Blowing up many people's lives and even whole systems. All involved have to be watchful, and above all study.
I hope you have an opportunity to watch and discuss the Boghossian video above.
The Obvious Fallacy explains that declaring entire systems in religion "utter nonsense" and "bronze-age myths" are not valid conclusions. Sadly, there have been people of faith and faithless people who have spread division, pit groups against each other, fueled wars and caused all manner of horrible atrocities to reverberate through world history. However, it has never been all the faithful orall the faithless world peoples causing the spread of calamities and lamentations.
Without a doubt, science is a great world tool and it methods continuously bless humanity mightily. How about Jesus Christ was, is, he a teacher of high ethical values, in your opinion?
You first need to prove that Jesus ever actually existed before you can decide who he was. Nobody in the Bible ever met Jesus.
Why?
Humanists profess to ethical behavior without a God. Is Jesus's Commandment, "Love one another" less perfect if Jesus is a myth? If "ethical philosophy" is enough for you, why would you impose more than that on others?
The essence of Christ is not all the rigamarole that has accumulated around His story. All that is secondary. Some, including myself, would say that the rigamarole is a destructive distraction from the essential: "Love one another".
How would you verify I exist? Have you met me? No. Indeed, to my knowledge, no one on NT has met me in person. You and I have communicated together on many wide-ranging topics for several years across different social media platforms, nevertheless. We have shared ranges of emotions—together. How do you validate my existence?
One way is through the continuity and quality of thought exchanges we continue to share right now.
The biblical writers, Peter, James -the Younger, John, Jude, and Matthew, all original disciples, wrote or assisted in the authorship of books about the ministry years of Jesus Christ. These men knew the reality of the man they gave witness about, using direct and circumstantial evidences, dates, times, and additional witness statements attesting to the life of Jesus, the man.
No god is necessary for a person to be moral and act compassionately toward others.
I can prove that you exist without meeting you because we can have a reasonably intelligent real-time debate that is visible to others.
On theological questions like this I defer to my pastor-daughter (yes, I have a hard time believing that myself) who reminds her congregation from time to time that all the miracle stuff is interesting but doesn't really matter. It's the message. It just occurred to me that I've never asked her if she's read the Jefferson Bible (NT).
Agreed. Kant's categorical imperative is entirely secular.
I'd go further than you did: It is essential that God be unnecessary, because otherwise our free will would be meaningless.
That said... I believe there is a God...
Cool!
The Gospels were written 3-4 generations after the supposed death of Jesus. They are not first-hand accounts because there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus. Paul of Tarsus never met Jesus, despite the hallucination that he experienced on the road.
Good recap.
I don't know why some people want Jesus to be fictitious. Logically, atheists should shun anything that isn’t fact and reason, but sometimes they're eager to prove a negative...
Even in a world without God, total free-will is impossible. Naturalism and its many variations of adherents accept they are part of the Cosmos. Thus, for the naturalists, human will is determined by the forces of the Cosmos.
And, the authenticators of the Bible verify their 'works' using appropriate methods. It can not be seriously denied. Those methods are beyond the scope of this article. This article is primarily about humanist Dr. Boghossian attempts at ending faith (in world religions).
Don't be obtuse. What parts of the Bible did Pontius Pilate, James, Mary or the Disciples write?
Paul never met your hypothetical buddy Jesus and he preached a very different philosophy than what the apostles supposedly did.
It's not a matter of "wanting" it's the fact that there are no first-hand accounts and no record of this hypothetical man's existence outside of biblical sources and anachronistic Christian forgeries.
Admit? An atheist, by definition, is not convinced that a god exists. The concept of 'admitting a god exists' presumes atheists actually believe a god exists. If an atheist were to be convinced that a god exists then the atheist would be a theist.
Further, simply being a theist (or a deist) does not necessarily lead to accepting the Bible as truth. That is a profoundly heavy burden of convincing.
No atheist would admit god is real because there is no evidence for a god.
There are no first-hand records of most of the people who have lived on this Earth.
Strange that the Roman empire didn't mention your Jesus buddy despite his supposed notoriety.
Not at all. There is very little about Julius Caesar, either... but nobody doubts his reality. Writers didn't do much "current events" in those days...
Wikipedia has an excellent article on the Historicity of Jesus . I don't expect you to be convinced, since you have made up your mind once and for all... but there may be readers with a more open mind...
Your citation actually makes my point:
.
So at the very least we seem to have agreement that the relevant portion of the Josephus text is a forgery by Christians. My understanding is that all of the texts in question are derived from single sources, ie there are no other extant copies of an earlier age which can be compared to the one which makes claims about your Jesus buddy.
You must have missed this:
You might want to follow that "Christ myth theory" link. It describes your dogma pretty well.
Merry Christmyth!
Your sarcasm is getting old!
Merry Christmas!
Shrekk, this article is about Dr. Peter Boghossian's lecture on ending faith. Why don't you watch the video above? Address our topic of discussion, please.
The site rules and the Four B’s will be enforced.
Be On-Point.
Be Positive.
Be Respectful.
Or Be Gone!
What??
You don't believe in lambing in December?
I did not know Jesus had a brother, learned something here
thanks, I forgot about that
We know that Pontius Pilate existed but there is nothing outside of the Bible saying that he knew Jesus. The existence of Mary is still unproven.
Did I say that ALL calamities in the world are caused by religion? Suicide attackers have extremely strong faith, in fact, it is their faith which inspires their actions and convinces them to throw their lives away, taking as many 'infidels' with them as they can.
There is no contemporary historical record of the Jesus described in the bible, it is all hearsay. As far as the values taught in the New Testament, I find that the average atheist embraces them to a higher degree than the average Christian. I love the teachings of Jesus and so does every atheist I know. Morality does not, in any way, depend on whether or not you have superstitious beliefs. You are a good person, Calbab, if I could prove to you that there is no God, would you become a different person? Would you start raping and killing, and stealing? Of course not, you would be the same good person you are now. Virtually every hardened con in the penitentiaries is a 'born again' Christian. I'm not blaming Christianity for this, but obviously, morality does not depend on God belief.
Like many atheists, I have read the bible, all of it. It is chock full of false history and ludicrous nonsense from cover to cover. If the bible doesn't reveal the utter nonsense of Christianity to you, nothing will. I tell Christians the same thing they tell everyone else, read the bible, all of it, not just the passages your minister points out to you.
Merry Christmas to you and your family, Calbab, may this be your best one ever!
Are you sure of this?
I would think that they are expressing tribal appartenance.
Jesus was an outsider preacher in a backwater province of the Empire, who was crucified fairly young. Why would his story make the headlines in Rome?
OTOH, before the end of the First Century, the Christian movement had become important enough for Josephus to take notice . This is how historiography is built, so it lends credence to the real existence of Jesus.
On the contrary... I think it requires "faith" to affirm that Jesus did not exist. Proving a negative is pretty hard...
Your question points out something that needs further elaboration. In my case, apart from my faith in God, indeed I did consider myself to be a good person. Now, I can tell you I understand such goodness to be "self-righteousness" apart from God. That is, I did what I considered right in my own mind.
What shall we say of those unfortunate individuals who are not mildly self-righteous in nature? Individuals who commit gross crimes of passion and pre-meditation against their fellow humanity? What becomes of these folks when they repent and turn to God from individual wickedness? Can we say God made them a "different person"? Can we say God made me a changed person? In fact, I can say it. All I need to do is reflect on the areas of my life where I was too weak to make useful correction/s.
There is another type of good that derives from being spiritually-connected to God. Consider Saul (who changed his name to Paul).
ACTS 26:8 (NIV)
9 “I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.
We certainly know that Paul repented of his self-righteous indignation against the Jews following after Jesus. Paul became a chief leader, an Apostle, to the very sect he raged against! Was the "murderous" Saul as good a man as this changed man Apostle Paul, a church planter, we know so well?
Thank you, lennylynx. This may be interesting or curious to you (and others), I do not celebrate Christmas with any special meaning. My attitude relating to religious holidays is borne out of being in a mixed religious household (I have explained my blended faith household in the past). I am a Christian surrounded by hybrid Muslim and Atheist adherents. It creates exotic, subtle inroads into our personalities.
The way I look at it, Christmas is much more than a religious celebration. It's a time to reconnect with family and friends, and for many people, it's the only time they ever show the love they have for their friends and family. Christmas truly is the most wonderful time of the year.
The Josephus "Jesus texts" are almost certainly a later forgery by Christian adherents who inserted them while copying some texts of Josephus. It's very unlikely that a Jew would use the terminology of a believer.
Read the Wikipedia article, rather than that of an imitator that announces
It's easy to go overboard, as they have here.
Sorry but there are plenty of academic sources which have debunked the claims which bible-babblers make about Josephus and these rather obvious hoaxes. While you obviously don't like RationalWiki because they're not superstitious and thus don't support Bronze-age mythology or your particular cult, you might at least want to look at the very credible academic citations they link to in their excellent summary of the issues (some of which are by Catholic historians).
It's very clear that the references to "Jesus" were added by Christian nuts trying to prop up their myths long after Josephus was dead.
No more that it requires "faith" to question whether Zeus or Quetzalcoatl really exist. At the very least there seems to be no credible historical evidence for your buddy Jesus outside of biblical texts or forgeries by Christian loons.
Your faith has no more evidence than the myth of Horus.
Yes, it is leno.
Honestly, this will, probably, be my last Christmas. But, you know what? It has been a blast!
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and stay around
Merry Christmas Mango! Your last??
A mortal Jesus who was a street preacher who got himself killed because of his heretical teachings has a 50% chance of existing. Jesus as the son of god who rose from the dead didn't exist.
His early followers were likely just a radical sect of Jews. The biblical story of him being the son of god, who performed miracles and then rose from the dead was added later to create a religion separate from Judaism.
You just described the pagan festival of Yule.
- Something more than a street preacher, since he is shown several times debating the priests of the Temple... but His teachings did indeed get Him killed.
- Christ didn't dwell on the idea of a religion. From what we see of Him in the Gospels, He considered Himself a Jew, but didn't want His followers to limit their love of their fellows to Jews only.
- Christ's story was written soon enough after His death that eyewitnesses were still available, but those who wrote the story were not investigative reporters. So there is surely exaggeration. To what extent is anyone's guess. I would guess "a lot"!
Hi Bob! Just to expand on your comment. (Skeptics should note the bold words.)
Luke 1:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Source: Biblegateway NIV
We don't seem to know much about Luke.
(I read Taylor Caldwell's Dear and Glorious Physician when I was young -- early teens at the oldest, and that's a long time ago. I remember being impressed... but I don't remember the content. Apparently it was, as they say, highly fictionalized.)
Greek or Hellenized Jew? In any case, he was contemporary with Jesus, although he makes it clear that he never met Jesus. He death is fairly sure, in 84.
I realize you do not have many options, but using the Bible to corroborate itself will not persuade skeptics.
It's also circular reasoning.
Exactly.
Look at modern day religions and cults. Let's take Scientology for example. Scientology simply proclaims itself to be truth. It is insanity IMO yet plenty of currently living people believe in this nonsense, so would anyone be surprised if some future author extends the books of Scientology by writing of the beliefs of those who had 'first-hand experience' with L. Ron Hubbard or his contemporaries?
I use Scientology as an example because it is a relative new religion - just like Christianity was a relatively new religion. The mere fact that men in the past believed certain things (or wrote as if they believed these things) does not make them real. Human beings are remarkably adept at conceiving 'truths' and also at accepting (believing) 'truths' they are told. The Church of Scientology is a testament to this with 'the prophet' the late L. Ron Hubbard who invented what is now a thriving contemporary religion. To wit, Scientology illustrates in quite clear terms how some can willingly believe almost anything.
Most religions usually do.
I wouldn't be surprised either.
The insanity is believing those things or such claims are real (or true), no questions asked. At the very least, if it's not insanity, it's certainly gullibility.
Indeed. See previous statement.
Hi Bob! This is the pervasive problem with trying to decipher who did what for which purposes at any given moment in the past, or for that matter the present.
Imagine a record of all of your NT comments to date —the good, the bad, the ugly; imagine your intent for writing each comment; imagine all the "short-circuiting" statements by others that break into your messaging trains of thought; and, finally imagine the 'body' of your words safely archived until some indefinite period after your most unfortunate departure from this life.
(In to the scene appears a future archivist. . . .)
The archivist opens the 'book' of your comments and began to share them with the world. Bob: How much about your biography, the real you, does anyone here know? Doing your time as a Newstalker, have you intentionally informed us about "Bob, the individual" —your drives, motivations, passions, etceteras? You can follow my point!
This is one of the many side-issues I am confronted with by modern historians and critical "practitioners" who attack the Bible writers. While their methodologies may be approved and appropriate, who can with certainty say these critics derived results are without question?
Luke, for instance, was writing to a patron named Theophilus about many different happenings, circumstances, places, and people around him. Luke appears to not have considered himself the star of his writings. Yet, Bible critics, go after Luke as if to "out" him. They put his character up for modern questioning; his motives for writing; invent disinformation-misinformation, and may wildly speculate about the man, his books, and his understanding of early first century events and people. In effect, modern critics use Luke to discredit his writings.
FYI, the one who is persuaded is removed from her/his skepticism. Case in point: Lee Strobel, the former skeptic turned Christian author. I wrote an article about it The Case for Christ (Movie) .
I believe I read and commented on that article. You recognize that I was speaking of skeptics in general. There are exceptions to everything.
I am sorry, but each time I go to reply those pesky "buzzwords" you employ for effect distract me. So, I will simply shut up and let you proceed. . . at will. Tell me about your faith options anytime.
What "buzzwords" would those be? And how is it distracting?
There are only two "options:" have faith or do not. I do not. I don't go by faith. I prefer facts and evidence.
I do realize the exceptions to the rule. The world is full of exceptionally changing people across every spectrum. No doubt, you can appreciate the difficulty in trying to tell everyone's story in a comment.
It's worse than that. Imagine that my posts are recopied hundreds of times across a thousand years...
In any case, Luke is the most readable.
Oh!
You're cruel!
L. Ron Hubbard was a horrible author. Anyone who actually manages to read one of his books is a saint.
This is a faith-type category. Perhaps, on your part there has been a category mistake?
Not at all. My replies have addressed religion.
Well, we do not have a mountain of books for you to explore; unless, you want some bible commentaries, bible dictionaries, sacred hymns, and holy books. You want some? You're welcome to them! I want you to feel like you can write something comforting and exhorting now and again.
Thanks for the offer, but I'm good.
I don't think one man's opinion should be enough to shake anyone's faith. Faith doesn't require knowledge, that's why it's called faith.
I do think that people should put aside their religious faith when making secular law. Some religious faiths tend to get in the way because they don't believe that all people are equal.
Jeez, TG!
What's all this "reasonable" stuff?
You know that's not allowed on NT!
sorry, Bob
People of faith are expected (required) to have a well-reasoned faith. That is, we are to look deep into the 'well' of our religious books: Study, rightly divide, and determine the width, height, length, and depth of our conviction.
But when you have doubts or questions, you fall back on your faith, do you not?
By whom?
IMHO, faith is a very personal, private matter. I discuss my faith freely, but it is subordinated to no one's opinion except mine. Personally, the more I think about God and faith, the less I "understand" and the more it all becomes "mystical", in the religious sense.
"God is love" is a terribly difficult idea to grasp, with implications that I can often glimpse, but never follow very far.
The doubts are about the faith, unfortunately... so "falling back on faith" is kinda circular...
The problem is that any rational being must be aware that the symptoms of faith are very similar to those of self-hypnosis. And self-hypnosis is very present in some forms of belief, from Whirling Dervishes to Quakers to Speaking in Tongues... We even know with precision how the brain can be "forced" to produce endorphins to the point of delirium.
So we must wonder if our faith is not self-hypnosis. And then wonder whether that would actually debase it in any way... and that's about when my head starts to hurt and I pack it in...
Assuming that your prayer was for a tax cut, here's how the syllogism looks for that:
Now here are the reasons why it's all a fallacy of reasoning. First, you've told us that god communicated his wishes for you but no promise to deliver it. That means that the Republicans may or may not have been directed by this god to pass the tax bill. There's not even any indication that the god wanted anything to do with with it. It also assumes two things: 1. that you think the tax cut was just for you and, 2. that you merely think you're in for a tax cut without really knowing (forget about telling us how rich you are; that's just going to make you look even more silly).
The following logical fallacies are the result of the above:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: knowing the tax bill was going to be passed made the prayer irrelevant
Non-sequitur: the conclusion is not supported by the previous facts
But the biggest fallacy is:
Reification: treating an abstraction (i.e., praying to a god) as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity
No, I am not self-hypnotized, Bob! I have a well-established and well-reasoned belief in God that has weathered many challenges to it. Furthermore, I have in me, something that is only and best described in the Bible as, "in-dwelling Spirit":
Ephesians 1
12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
Note that there is a "deposit" in the believer when one is developing a serious (deepening) faith. An intangible spiritual presence which does not enthrall individual will, instead the Spirit guides and advises. There is a tangible aspect too. Many new believers can testify to and describe a period of up to 6 weeks where they are noticeably displaying hugs and kisses and 'new man/woman' verbiage to the outside world surrounding them. Such was my experience in 1993.*
Taken in total from the video above, it occurs to me Dr. Boghossian has no "insider" comprehension about that, faith, he wants to undermine and thus, end entirely. He makes no mention in his lecture about the deep spiritual attachment, in the case of Christianity, the believer has.
* It was not my intention to take this tack in discussion, but what else can I do? Tell my experiences, alongside the article, where explanation seems appropriate.
I didn't say you are.
I said that any intelligent Believer must ask the question about the reality of their faith. The symptoms of faith and of self-hypnosis are simply too close to be ignored. Thus far, my faith has survived my intentional skepticism... but who knows what will happen in the future?
It seems to me that refusing to examine the possibility of self-hypnosis would be a fairly good indicator of self-hypnosis...
Hi Trout-G! I am sorry, but I do not how you mean the question? Can you elaborate, please?
Well....let's see if I can explain myself. Please note that is only 0700 and the damn cat woke me up at 0330.
When I was going thru RCIA, we were taught that the things that could not be explained by reason, were a "mystery". Catholics rely heavily on these mysteries to keep their faith alive. Personally, I was having a problem with these mysteries because I don't believe in miracles or anything supernatural, so you could say that me and the CAtholic church started a long road to parting ways.
When you can't explain something in rational terms, do you rely on the mysteries of God? I guess that's what I'm trying to say in my own clumsy way.
And that's why I'm an agnostic....
TiG has a grid that makes a lot of sense.
There are gnostics and agnostics. A gnostic is absolutely sure. An agnostic recognizes the possibility of error.
There are theists and atheists. A theist believes in God (of some sort). An atheist does not think there is a God.
These categories can be mixed and matched: gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist. Only the last two are logically sound, from a rationalist's point of view. The theist cannot prove her faith, so there must be a possibility of error. The atheist cannot prove a negative, so there must be doubt.
Absolute certainty either way (that there is or is not a God), depends on faith at the expense of reason.
Trout-G, I understand you a bit better now. Thank you. First, I am a protestant Christian. I say this upfront, because I even had to lookup what RCIA, Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, meant! LOL. It is important to keep in mind that Catholics and Protestants are 'worlds' apart in how they administrate and perform ministry functions, in my humble opinion. More on that later, maybe.
What I mean by well-reasoned faith is our system of belief is taken heavily from the Bible as a whole, and from the New Testament as for our times. Within the Bible resides our faith and as you can see an entire worldview derives that has continued for thousands of years! So many theologies. So many explanations. So many answers! The Christian faith has been comprehensively evaluated by many groups for many rewarding and even self-interested purposes. Now to your question.
When I, we, come to a question in the Bible where say, the Bible is silent, unclear, delivers a theological answer in multiple facets, etceteras, a solution can sometimes be drawn together through reconciling ("making friendly") different texts by looking at them as a unit. Inference is involved in this. More on that later if needed. However, if a passage is completely unworkable, incomprehensible, or irreconcilable it is often left for some future time when it may reveal itself. For instance, we understand much of the history of the Bible and settle many disputes about places, customs, and activities in the Bible only when the ground over time gives up 'data.' (tablets, paraphernalia, even cities rediscovered). So yes, that could be the mystery factor you are asking about and how some questions are resolved.
Another method is to simply abide in faith and wait. Apostle Paul wrote about this. (Not even he knew everything, LOL!)
I Corinthians 13
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Hope this helps. Ask again if you wish. (I need to run and have some coffee. Arghh.)
You probably know that Catholics don't believe the bible is the literal word of God, it's the inspired word of God. I don't know if you believe in the literal word or the inspired word, but when you state that sometimes you have to infer what the Bible means, I think that you are not taking it literally. I'm probably wrong.
Not all Protestant sects and Catholics are worlds apart. The only things I see different between Episcopalians and Catholics is transubstantiation and the Sacrament of Confession. Catholics are expected to confess to a priest, while Episcopalians silently confess to God in prayer.
Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and the so-called non-denominational sects are as different from Catholics as hats are from shoes
I so much agree with you.
My faith in God Is extremely personal. It is not up for grabs. Truly, it is unimportant to me whether one believes or not.
God is love.....pure unadulterated love.
I always admired Catholics for their official support for cannibalism and vampirism. How else can one become imbued by a "spirit" without eating a corpse or drinking its blood?
Zingers are a poor substitute for actual thought...
Bob, I had to read your message overnight and meditated on it. I responded to Trout-G in 7.2.1.2.… . Maybe it speaks to something you are stating?
One of the perpetual arguments that occurs between peoples of faith and other people searching for evidences of God has to do with God's methods. Peoples of Faith are assured that they are 'called out' to exist in the faith-dimension , whereas the 'wordly' people seek evidences from them of what they are stating and demonstrating is happening to them.
Why does the creator choose a secret method like faith for his people, and we know it is clearly deliberate because Jesus warned of it:
Matthew 13
13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.” 10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
So yes, Bob. Our God has chosen to deal with man through faith and subjectivity. While the natural order (world) looks for objectivity. To be clear, neither is a wrong method when used correctly. That is, people of faith should never attempt to eradicate unbelievers from usefully equal service in society and unbelievers should recognize and appreciate the good works of believers. Better to build a whole house rather than a house with pock-marked.
Oh you! You and that 'wet' wit captures the spirit of the occasion every time!
Not necessarily. Not everyone sees a flash of light on the Road to Damascus. I believe there is a God... but I'm not certain. She has never spoken to me.
I do not know what God is, except that He is so far beyond me that I cannot begin to understand. I am sure that any such entity must be... harmony... or to express it in Christian terms, "God is Love". Such a God does not lay an obstacle course in front of Her creations. He gives us a very simple key, "Love one another"... and then it's up to us...
There may be some people who have been given the grace of certainty. I don't know, because I am not one of them. Observing them, I cannot know if they have been touched by God... or by mental illness. The symptoms are very similar. At the end of the day, or the end of the universe, or whatever... there is only one question: have we done our best to love one another?
Sounds like you're not actually familiar with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. If you are then please reply with a cogent comment disputing what I said above.
Note that this general theme of ancestor worship via relics and the cannibalism of one's "god" isn't exactly unique to Catholicism but it's especially obvious in how Catholicism is practiced in Europe and other regions outside the US. No other major Christian cult is so obsessed with magic powers acquired through the display and touching of the bones of dead folks.
Ahem.* That's brilliant, Bob. Love is eternal and God is love.
I'm not defending Catholic dogma. I don't know anything about it, and I avoid opinions without knowledge.
I was criticizing your manners.
To understand Skrekk's comment, transubstantiation requires the faithful to believe that the actual bread and wine consumed during the Eucharist that it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.
The priest blesses the wafers and the wine and "poof" it is now the actual blood and flesh. Thus the cannibalism and vampire comment
Ummm... color me miffed... I know what transubstantiation is. I talk about religion rather a lot, you see...
I was annoyed by Skrekk's Comment because it implies that people have been fools for a very long time, waiting for Skrekk's brilliance to illuminate them. That's kinda pretentious.
I try not to presume that others are fools: I suspect that the Church has been defending transubstantiation from this sort of sophomoric argument for something over a millennium and a half. I don't know those arguments, because frankly they don't interest me... but implying that they don't exist is... silly.
I would kindly ask that all mention of the phrases, "bible babblers" and "Christian loons" and any similar assortment of words assessed as "combative" be wiped from this discussion, please.
Sounds like you just don't like having your cult discussed in the same way that most Christians describe the practices and silly beliefs of non-Christian cults.
Not at all.
I just don't like churlish behavior.
These constant seeds about religion are the silliest seeds on NT.
They have a professional debating circuit where the existence of God and the worth of various religions is debated all the time. Sometimes the same debaters travel from town to town and put on the show at the next location. People pay to get in, and the performers get a salary. NT is starting to remind me of that.
Religions obviously evolved as cultural expressions of man's need to understand his place in the eternal scheme.
Religion is passed down from generation to generation within families and societies. As science grew to a predominant position in the world in the past (fill in the blank) number of centuries, religion has been more challenged to maintain it's ranks.
Ultimately, no one knows much about God, but many have faith. I have no idea what is wrong with this situation, but we do constantly hear about it.
So... Why are you participating?
I make a comment once in a while.
Mostly it seems that you didn't like having your false claims about Josephus challenged. Facts are important even when discussing superstition and mythology.
This would be for difficult, ambiguous, and silent questions and circumstances that derive from study in the Bible. Making inferences , can be practically helpful when using appropriate biblcal tools such as biblical 'data' including bible study-guides, a trusted bible commentary, and a good bible dictionary. Afterwards, it is easier (and safer) to make a good conscience call. There are many areas in the Bible meant to be taken literally, likewise there are literary genres (see Scriptural Orchard ) and literary styles used as well!
Why are all these efforts needed? One reason could be that the original disciples did not immediately constitute the Church, but left it for others to do.
Bob, I wholeheartedly agree with John on this one. About four years ago when I begin these types of "engagements" online, i had no idea of the on-going debates that I have learned have literally been going on since the enlightenment age begin, graduating into the evolution and school prayer court cases in the 20th century, and spilling over into the World Wide Web. Imagine my surprise when I "linked" into it and a fire-hose of feedback (push-back) flooded across my computer.
Well, several years later (and a "heaven" lot of research) I observe some similarities in 'extreme' millionaires like Joel Osteen (Pastor-Writer) and Richard Dawson (Scientist-Writer-Debater). The "pricey" seminars, books, and swag studies (for instance free Youtube videos) online are pervasive. These circuits are depressing to me and you can bet this industry is corrupt by now.
On a personal note: I was appalled and mildly depressed to discover the "deep-roots" to this perpetual battle for the hearts and minds of peoples of the world, and that I was finding a role for myself to play in it! Sigh!
I wanted to walk away, but this debate "attaches" itself to poor souls traveling by! Note: I am a lay Christian. A concerned Christian who, in the words of Donald Trump, seeks to understand "What the hell is going on! . . ." I have seen a lot and read a lot over recent years. Enough to get suspicious about money driving the whole thing.
On a positive note: John, I do observe these types of debates and discussions serve a useful function to inform ordinary travelers through this life of the serious and grave philosophical issues invisibly swirling around us seeking and often successful in having a real-world impact on our every day lives! It's a massive amount of effort, research, and work! A greater good can come from it all-around, nevertheless.
As seeder, you may lock your seed at any time.
There's a reason why all online forums -- not just NewsTalkers -- have a "religion" section. There are a lot of us, who find the subject important and interesting.
I have no problem with religious discussions and even debates about the existence of God and the worth of Christianity. We do tend to see the same few arguments repeated over and over again though.
At least Trump says something stupid new every day or two so there is some variety in that particular line of squabbling.
Ummmm........ John....
This is the Religion Forum . That kinda sorta explains why we talk about "religion" here.
If you want Trump 24/7, you should stay in the Politics Forum.
But people do not leave it at that. They offer all sorts of stories and attributes of God. If left in the abstract (e.g. God is Love) one has simply a philosophical position. No claims of truth (unless one is simply offering their personal definition). No claims of rules that God imposes. No claims of wonderful things if one follows these rules and nightmarish horror if one does not.
Another philosophical definition for God is 'creator of the known universe'. No claim that God necessarily exists, but simply the belief that all we observe is the result of a sentient creator and not the consequence of cosmological evolution.
To wit, the problem is not belief in 'God', per se, but rather the belief in an overly specific god - a god with details that are merely claimed by human beings yet remain (after several millennia) without credible evidence.
Bob! I meant I wanted to walk away from it years ago. Now I am too "all-in." LOL!
LOL!
That's those people's fault. Not God's.
I think not. If one believes that there is a God, and that "God is love", then "Love one another" imposes itself as an imperative.
Yes, I always blame the people. To me that is logical ... go to the root - the true source.
I was contrasting philosophical position with a claim of truth. Not addressing the consequences of a philosophical position.
mea culpa, Bob
Thank-you for the polite discussion, Calbab. It's always great talking to you. Merry Christmas
It really is an interesting echo chamber. A number of years ago, a tornado went through a small town in Oklahoma and killed 26 children in a school, ( think it was Moore Oklahoma..??). Anyway, someone on NV was praising God that the damage was not much worse, (which I kind of doubt that the parents of these children agree with). The following brief conversation took place:
.
Me: "How can you "praise God" for stopping a tornado that killed 26 children. Shouldn't you be blaming God for the tornado in the first place?
Poster: "No, the tornado was a natural phenomenon, God doesn't cause that, but he did stop the tornado."
Me: But if God is all powerful and all knowing, why allow the tornado to kill 26 children in the first place?"
Poster: "God didn't start the tornado, he stopped it!"
/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm/facepalm
.
I wish I could so easily wrap everything up into a ball and just explain it all away as, "if it's good, God did it, if it's bad, God didn't do it". But then look at the politics of these people when a democrat is in office, "If it's bad, the POTUS did it, if it's good, the POTUS had nothing to do with it".
Then why do so many on the right spread so much hate in the name of God? Roy Moore is a prime example. So is kim davis.
I said God is love......
Try this as an explanation:
How nice! Thank you for saying this, Trout-G! (I was away all day and just read this comment.)
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Hi Mr. Frost, great-great question! The difficulty in this is one of perspective. Where I-God stands in our earthly relationship . The average Christian is not a bewildered simpleton who lacks an understanding of the pains and sorrows meted out in this world. What is occurring in such moments where issues, crises, and death are activated is Christians, believers, yielding to a New Testament principle :
I Thessalonians 5
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit.
Here's what I mean: The New Testament teaches, ' The whole world groans from trials, tribulations, testings, and periods of lamentations to conclude. ' What we have is a very dynamic world surrounding us. We do not fully comprehend the WHY of the suffering here, but in scripture we are instructed it is all working for our good. It is all meant to point us to God. We can not in a humble mind expect to "operate" at the level of a Superior Being, for that would involve a shifting in the I-God relationship, no?
Lastly, this: The New Testament, written so long ago, Jesus answered the question of pain and death this way: 'God is not the God of the dead. . . . all live to God . Mr. Frost in God's economy no one is dead who is truly worthy of life. Putting it another way: death is not the worse that can happen to a man, woman, or child from God's perspective. Peace.
Merry Christmas!
That's why any real sky wizard would have a twitter account.
Perhaps a definition of 'faith in god' should be arrived at before disseminating 'faith in god' in the first place.
Example; My faith in god justifies the polluting of the waters so the corporate can increase profit and my 'fetus worshipping' GOP congress critter said so as he clutched the bible.
That is silly.
Yes it is--and--only because it is true.
Unfortunately it is true though. If you look at the GOP politicians most of them have claimed that they are Christians, they oppose abortion as long as it gets them votes, (that is the only reason that they do, in some cases), others oppose it because they believe to some degree that it is wrong, ie, the second trimester period rule, yet, like Trump if you ask them to recite their favorite verse in the Bible they deflect to something else and, it is soon forgotten that they couldn't name one verse they liked in the Bible. I'm a Democrat and, a Pagan yet, I think I know more about the Bible than most politicians on either side of the isle.
Tell him to work harder
ATTENTION: Several commenters here are completely off-topic and I am asking for you to knock it off immediately. If you do not wish to add "positively," and that word has wide discretion which any assembly of adults can relate to, then simply leave this room. Articles abound!
Gotta love it, trump says there is a war on Christmas and suddenly all the rightists come out of the wood work to there is a war on Christmas.... There is no war on Christmas, calm down. The simple reality is that Christianity is on the decline.
.
.
Not saying it's good or bad, just stating a fact.
.
That being said? Merry Christmas all.
That would many of the more severe problems our world is facing.
*would solve many