JStrat

This could be a question for anyone, though I have theists in mind. And I am a theist; I do not, however, have any desire to impress my beliefs on anyone else, and I certainly do not want to legislate my beliefs. I understand that they are subjective beliefs, and that I do not have evidence to back up my claim of divinity.

If your proof is only what you've been told and an ancient book of myths, as is the case for most religions, why would you take a stand on a belief you cannot prove and try to make others believe it?

Sure, you saw Jesus while you lay bleeding after that car accident. But you realize that's just based on your belief system, don't you? If you were a Viking lying bleeding on the field of battle, you would have seen a Valkyrie.

I know it appears as yelling to many, but some people are clearly not doing it with a plan to yell or provide emphasis. I have seen people do it on this site and on Facebook, and they are often posting mundane things like, "I HAVE A BETTA FISH TOO, BETTA FISH ARE GREAT MINE LIVED A LONG TIME." I don't think such things are intended to be yelling. So why do so many people do it? Where are they learning it, and why do they think it's a good idea to type things up that way?

Y!A even gives a pop-up warning if you start typing with all capital letters, as I just discovered when I used my example, so I'm not sure if that is just ignored by people or what's going on there.

If you do, of course. Why?

A holy book? A personal experience? Why do you believe?

This new Earth is not new at all, it's always been here, on the other side of the sun, following the same orbit we follow. The people there made contact with me, and gave me a copy of their holy book, "The Burble" which explains all of this.

If you do not believe me, why not? Would you need evidence to believe?

Adam and Eve, prior to eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, did not know good from evil. So they lived in a world without ethics. They had no moral compass beyond doing as they were told, and had no reason not to believe someone else, like the serpent.

Of course, the story is silly. But if you're going to use it in a literal sense as the foundation of a religion, it should make some sense. Even without a talking snake, it doesn't make much sense, does it?

Our credulity goes a long way towards explaining why so many people believe in gods, but so many people are still credulous even when they reject gods... in other words, they may be atheists, but they certainly are not good scientific skeptics.

Belief in alien landings, haunted houses, conspiracy theories, or the attribution of every third quotation on the Internet to Albert Einstein, however ridiculous, comes to mind. So, why are most humans such credulous creatures, and has it served as an evolutionary advantage? It clearly has its drawbacks.

Many times I have seen people saying they would not worship the Christian god even if he were real, because he is barbaric, violent, misogynistic, psychopathic, and so forth. Agreed.

But most of us would fold if we were tortured for mere hours by those trained in torture. How many fingernails could be peeled from your hands, one by one, before you caved? How much water boarding can you take? And most of us would run from things more powerful than us that threaten us... say, lions, tigers, or bears. Oh my.

Do you really think you would not worship a god that is unimaginably more powerful than any bear and who threatens an eternity of torture that makes a few hours of fingernail loss a walk in the park? Granted, you can't be made to love such a creature. And it's noble to think you would stand up to him. But really. Eternity is a long time to be in pain.

In the broad sense, we often call others to our cause if we think it's important. But I have seen calls for the religious to keep their religion to themselves. If you ever ask anyone to believe as you believe, to support what you support, to join a cause, a party, to share an ideal, then it seems hypocritical to ask the religious not to proselytize.

I am not saying the religious should make threats of damnation or anything of the like, and often that is not the case anyway. But to share love, even if it's not the way you define love, isn't that alright? Seems it to me.

If science hasn't figured everything out, maybe some of the beliefs and practices of the religious have real net benefits that are perfectly scientific, just not currently measurable.

And if those practices are not infringing on the rights of others, maybe there's something to be learned from them by the scientific community. By the same token, the religious can learn much from the scientific community. And there exists plenty of crossover already, despite different aims and spheres of knowledge.

There are plenty of religious scientists. Maybe they are doing more than "compartmentalizing", no?

Most of the extra-Biblical references around Jesus' time are about Christians, rather than Jesus himself, but Tacitus seems to confirm the death of Jesus under Pilate, and he seems to be a credible, non-partisan source.

Among other oft-quoted sources, Julius Africanus quotes people from Jesus' time, but writes of the events over a hundred years later, and was a partisan Christian writer. Pliny the Younger writes of early Christian worship, but does not verify Christ as a historical figure. And Josephus writes what looks like a confirmation of Jesus historically, but which has long since been debunked as forgery.

So it seems I am left with Tacitus, and perhaps others I have neglected. Is there enough evidence outside the Bible to confirm Jesus as a historical figure, if not a god?

Granted, the Supreme Court made Jews a race for legal purposes in order for anti-discrimination laws to apply, but that didn't go over entirely well and is, ultimately, a localized legal ruling. Genetically, this is not true, as common ancestry is not required to be Jewish (though common).

Jews can be from any race. And there are many different Jewish cultures, though most in the U.S. are Ashkenazic in origin. That's certainly not true worldwide.

Some Jews say they are atheists, but still Jewish just because they have Jewish lineage. Seems like that's just buying into the religion you supposedly don't believe in. I used to be a Mormon, and as far as the Mormons are concerned, I always will be. That certainly doesn't mean I'm still a Mormon in any sense but theirs.

So if you think being Jewish is an ethnicity... how so?

Would you really want all the answers?

If you could look behind the veils of indoctrination, repetitive brainwashing, subliminal messages and cultural norms, would you really want to? Through religion, through commercialism, consumerism, capitalism? A look at what you eat and what you wear on your feet, and how it got to you? A look past Big Brother's latest scrim? Past technology, too?

What if you question everything and come to the conclusion that you reject society, but you don't reject family and friends? How would you reconcile the two?

Feel free to answers as many or as few of those questions as you like. ;)

I'll give three for each, but there are endless choices. I'd like to add to the list! :)

For religion: Emperor Constantine, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther.

For secularism: Mary Wollstonecraft, Thomas Huxley, Thomas Paine.

Imagine a father telling his son this. "You don't have to love me, but if you don't, you will have to find somewhere else to live. And if you open the door to leave, the only place you'll find is on fire!"

Then the boy opens the door, rather bravely, and doesn't see any flames at all. There's just the smell of fresh-cut grass and a yellow butterfly flitting about.

This, to me, is part of the problem of free will in much of Protestant Christianity. First of all, the ultimatum of love me or burn is not much free will. I guess it's technically a choice, but it's not much of one. And second, the evidence for a hell is scant and controversial even in the Bible. So when we look around, we see the grass and the butterfly. If there's eternal flames waiting, shouldn't a loving God make himself more clearly known, and warn us more directly of the dangers? And why does he need the love of the creatures he made? Is he lonely?

Just some thoughts and questions.

Many believers point out certain religions as being made by man... generally speaking, any religion that is not there own. So believers, how do you know?

Someone recently commented that Hinduism and Buddhism were man-made, so they were false. Both of those religions are older than Christianity, and Buddhism broke from Hinduism, just as Christianity broke from Judaism. So what makes one "man-made" and the other true? How would you possibly know?

I mean, if he wanted to. He could raise the dead and heal the sick and turn water to wine and all sorts of other cool stuff, so could he fly, too, if he wanted? And if he could, why not do it? Probably get lots of followers really fast. That would be even cooler than walking on water.

That doesn't make sense to me. I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt and a modicum of civility, but respect should be earned, yes?

My mother is gone now, but I respected her when she was alive. And I respect and honor my father... but in both cases, this is because they earned it. If my father beat me and constantly said horribly degrading things to me, would I still be required to honor him? Because that wouldn't happen.

Martin Luther thought as much, and it was one of the anchors of Protestantism.

Is that all you need? Can you live a life of sin and compromised morals, murder, rape, and still be let in to heaven if, at the end, you truly repent, believe, and have faith in Jesus?

To what extent do you trust them? Enough to cross the street after looking both ways, most likely.

What about the senses of others? Enough to be a passenger on a jet airliner, perhaps.

What about sober senses vs. senses under the influence of a drug? Does it depend on the drug? Some drugs give you the sense of being hungry when you need to eat, and can't eat sober. Some make you more awake and alert when you need to drive to work at five o'clock in the morning.

When do you doubt your senses, and why?

I am a monist and a pantheist, but I don't believe in an impersonal god, since as a monist, there is no separation between me (or you, or a rock or a tree) and God. This is not the Christian god, nor is it any other codified conception I am aware of, but it's certainly not a new idea.

I also believe there are forms of life that might be considered gods that live on our planet with us, but they are just more actualized life forms that have lived among us for ages, some of them genetically identical to their parents, continuing on where the other left off. And while you may already think I'm off the deep end, I'm referring to certain plants. Hmm. That probably doesn't make me seem any less nutty, actually.

Anyway. "God" is a loaded term, but it's not "god" to me, it's Everything, and a capital letter seems warranted. I suppose "Everything" is an option, but it doesn't quite do it for me.

Just wondering if you have thoughts about other terms I could use. But feel free to call me a kook, too, if you feel the need. ;)