Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The evidence may be persuasive to the person who experienced it, but should it be?
Our brain lies to us. It is not to be trusted.
It tells us that we see things that we don't see, and sense things that do not exist. Our memories forge experiences that never happened.
Watch any of the videos of people speaking in tongues at a Pentecostal church, and you'll see honest people with lying brains.
Personal evidence needs to be checked and rechecked against logic and extrinsic sources.
I understand the appeal of personal experiences, but I also understand the dangers. Personal experiences, in my opinion, is notoriously unreliable - even if it uses intuition as its' alibi.
I understand your concerns, Box . . . but they all revolve around the utility of the evidence for others. For the individual who is sincerely vetting their experiences . . . it is the ultimate evidence . . . delusions, cognitive dissonance and other issues notwithstanding.
OK. I'm not a fundie, but I do try to understand why they can be so aggressive. It's because Jesus commanded them to evangelize, so they feel they have no choice about it if they want to live their religion.
I'm all for freedom of speech. But did Jesus tell Christians to get into their nation's governments and legislate laws that violate the Constitutional rights of non-Christians?
If he did, then I have a problem with that. Because that is exactly what fundies try to do all the time. We have freedom of religion in the U.S. and most other enlightened nations. Seems to me that religious belief is not personal at all in the U.S. It's very public.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 05-20-2012 at 03:18 PM..
On Black Friday (c.f. Good Friday) the taurobolium, or bull-slaying was represented. . . . Mithras, worn out by the battle, was symbolically represented by a stone image lain on a bier as a corpse. He was mourned for in liturgy, and placed in a sacred rock tomb called 'Petra,' from which he was removed after three days in a great festival of rejoicing.
Slaying the bull (or beast/animal) is a more concrete way of representing the conquering of our animal nature. The more evolved expression of the same theme is Christ enduring the scourging and crucifixion out of love by conquering the most primal of our animal drives . . . survival. It is clear that the earlier Mithras myth is at a more primitive level of symbolism - what we call a more concrete level of cognition - whereas the Jesus version is at a more evolved and abstract level of cognition.
How is Jesus' sacrifice more evolved than conquering our animal nature. The idea of punishing an innocent person for the crimes of other is called scapegoating. It seems like this has brought things backwards.
I understand your concerns, Box . . . but they all revolve around the utility of the evidence for others. For the individual who is sincerely vetting their experiences . . . it is the ultimate evidence . . . delusions, cognitive dissonance and other issues notwithstanding.
I'm also talking about the utility for the person who experienced the personal evidence.
I understand that personal evidence often persuades people to believe what they experienced is true.
But given the problems with personal experiences, I am arguing that personal experiences should not be completely trusted even by the people who had the experience.
How is Jesus' sacrifice more evolved than conquering our animal nature. The idea of punishing an innocent person for the crimes of other is called scapegoating. It seems like this has brought things backwards.
That is the ignorant interpretation placed on it by our primitive ancestors who simply did not understand Christ's message about the true nature of God. They were steeped in sacrificial appeasement beliefs about an angry vengeful God that has savage roots in prehistory. It was NOT a sacrificial appeasement. It was the ULTIMATE expression of agape love to reveal the true nature of our loving God to our ignorant savage ancestors because they "knew not what they were doing." Jesus smote no one through unbelievable scourging and crucifixion . . . to Judas' dismay and disbelief. "No greater love . . ."
Is faith based on little or no evidence reasonable?
I will give my own reply to this shortly.
To me it can reasonable from this angle: By indirect indicators. That is as best as I can explain it.
One example I may use is with atoms or electrons or other small particles in nature.
I have not red the latest whether there are enough strong enough microscopes to see the atoms. Years back I remember reading how scientists explained how atoms are made and yet admitted not being able to see them. However, regardless of how the atom looks like it is accepted that it exists. For all I know years or centuries later humanity may have different view of how atoms look. Who cares in my opinion. The fact is that based on the atom theory things seem to work. It is a theory. Things worked based on that beliefs. It is not reasonable to tell scientist "Well, you are being blind in your beliefs on the atom. I base it only on facts." To me that is being narrow minded also just as those that use that argument with someone that may believe in a designer out there in nature.
That is one angle. The other is logic. I do not believe in the Bible being the word of God or that Jesus is his son. I accept that it is probable that a designer may exist based on logic even though we cannot see him/her. Just as with the atom example, we can deduce that it logic can lead one to accept the probabilities of a designer existence.
Now, in case someone wants to prove me wrong about the atom example, forget it. Don't try it. I used it to show a concept. It atoms can now be seen, the example can still be used on other areas of science.
Lastly, to me there is a mental block of what faith is. The problem is that people have it in their minds the concept of god as described in the Bible, I don't. The faith definition can have its variations. I read the definition of faith in the Bible. From what I can see faith as described in the Bible does require evidence, not blind belief.
Actually, the other day I read that there is a word that describes what people call a blind faith. I do not remember the world though, sorry.
However, faith as defined in the Bible does require evidence and from that angle I answer your question. Faith can be a reasonable way to believe in something. Take care.
At any rate, Boxcar, it irks me a bit to read that there is NO evidence for God. There's evidence, it's just that it's debatable and often personal.
Ok, I understand you being irked. One had to read past the pronouncement to the argument being made. That there is no evidence for God is not to be taken as there being nothing to be presented as evidence, but that there is nothing that should compel a rational person to see it as a compelling argument.
I put the point recently that the Bible was evidence. A poster disagreed, seeing it as no more than a God -claim. I see it as evidence as indeed the ID and first cause arguments can be seen as evidence. But after discussion, do they really stand up as persuasive? That depends on what standards of 'proof' one requires, how logically one thinks, how much of the discussion one sees.
Now the personal evidence is ..well, it's personal. It certainly isn't proof or even evidence that is going to compel anyone else. The personal experiences of 'God' are obviously very real to those who experience them but as Boxcar says, how good is it as evidence to present to anyone else?
That is the ignorant interpretation placed on it by our primitive ancestors who simply did not understand Christ's message about the true nature of God. They were steeped in sacrificial appeasement beliefs about an angry vengeful God that has savage roots in prehistory. It was NOT a sacrificial appeasement. It was the ULTIMATE expression of agape love to reveal the true nature of our loving God to our ignorant savage ancestors because they "knew not what they were doing." Jesus smote no one through unbelievable scourging and crucifixion . . . to Judas' dismay and disbelief. "No greater love . . ."
Then you answer. What if Jesus had not died? Why did he have to die?
Then you answer. What if Jesus had not died? Why did he have to die?
We all have to die. The fear of death was the major concern of our ancient ancestors . . . second only to their fear of God. Christ came to correct their misunderstanding about the true nature of our God AND to remove the fear of death . . . but during that barbarous era it was obvious how that would be received and what His fate would be. He was willing to endure it to provide an unambiguous example of the true nature of our loving God and to remove the fear of death by demonstrating that we have a life after death. His death was the way that His human consciousness was reborn as Holy Spirit (Comforter) and made available to ALL of us within our human consciousness to guide us to the truth about God and our purpose. His perfect Holy Spirit provides the connection our collective human consciousness needed to God's consciousness . . . since none of us is able to achieve it on our own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
