Do you believe in God?

[PaliRichard 10]

So what, i cherry pick too,whats wrong with that.There's no rule to say you have to believe everything in the bible.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. In fact It's a term I don't like using.

 

What I'm trying to find out is WHY Snowbird believes the parts they do and rejects the rest. There is a difference between choosing the bits that seem appropriate to your life or circumstances and choosing to believe the bits that can be verified and rejecting the rest.

 

I'm not judging Snowbird, far from it, and I'm sorry if it comes across like I am, but I am VERY interested in the details.

 

Ooops, sorry Roots, almost duplicated your post then!

 

You beat me to it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by PaliRichard

[janie48 98]

Janie, if you actually read Palirich's posts, he is not saying anything is wrong with it. He is asking WHY she does it and HOW she decides which bits to believe. I'm not trying to insult you with this post, but your response was part of the all too familiar pattern of discussions between people like myself/Palirich and theists.

We ask questions, they are (wrongly) taken as hostile comments or opinions and go unanswered. The questions are asked again and eventually we are seen to be "badgering" or "hounding", all for the sake of a simple answer to a simple question.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. In fact It's a term I don't like using.

 

What I'm trying to find out is WHY Snowbird believes the parts they do and rejects the rest. There is a difference between choosing the bits that seem appropriate to your life or circumstances and choosing to believe the bits that can be verified and rejecting the rest.

 

I'm not judging Snowbird, far from it, and I'm sorry if it comes across like I am, but I am VERY interested in the details.

 

Ooops, sorry Roots, almost duplicated your post then!

 

You beat me to it.

 

I stand corrected.

[janie48 98]

The Flood legend might possibly have been based on real events:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

 

Thats very interesting.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

i cherry pick too,whats wrong with that.

The problem with that is what I'd call 'theological relativism'. If only part of the bible is true, then only the people who believe that exact part to be true are really "God's people". The others are confused, they're wrong, they don't understand the real bible. They're not really Christians/Jews/Muslims. It makes a mockery of the claim that one book holds religious wisdom, or truth - it doesn't.

 

I read this last night, and I enjoy it greatly.

Bertrand Russell - An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

 

As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to ourtroubles. Whose authority? The Old Testament? The New Testament? The Koran? In practice, people choosethe book considered sacred by the community in which they are born, and out of that book they choose theparts they like, ignoring the others. At one time, the most influential text in the Bible was: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Now-a-days, people pass over this text, in silence if possible; if not, with an apology. And so, even when we have a sacred book, we still choose as truth whatever suits our own prejudices. No Catholic, for instance, takes seriously the text which says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

[janie48 98]

The problem with that is what I'd call 'theological relativism'. If only part of the bible is true, then only the people who believe that exact part to be true are really "God's people". The others are confused, they're wrong, they don't understand the real bible. They're not really Christians/Jews/Muslims. It makes a mockery of the claim that one book holds religious wisdom, or truth - it doesn't.

 

I read this last night, and I enjoy it greatly.

Bertrand Russell - An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

 

As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to ourtroubles. Whose authority? The Old Testament? The New Testament? The Koran? In practice, people choosethe book considered sacred by the community in which they are born, and out of that book they choose theparts they like, ignoring the others. At one time, the most influential text in the Bible was: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Now-a-days, people pass over this text, in silence if possible; if not, with an apology. And so, even when we have a sacred book, we still choose as truth whatever suits our own prejudices. No Catholic, for instance, takes seriously the text which says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

I have known atheists who have had religious upbringings and they have told me how good it felt to feel free and liberated without the guilt and restrictions that religion imposed on them.I used to feel a bit like that when i was younger because i was a quite resentful towards authority,and didn't like being told what to do,especially with regard to religion.

Now though i am comfortable with living the way i choose,without feeling any obligations,and whether you are an atheist or a theist,i think having a religious education that isn't over the top,is a good thing.How can you really understand history, and our culture and traditions without having some religious knowledge.I'm also in favour of teaching the basics of other faiths too.

[chorba 10]

I have known atheists who have had religious upbringings and they have told me how good it felt to feel free and liberated without the guilt and restrictions that religion imposed on them.I used to feel a bit like that when i was younger because i was a quite resentful towards authority,and didn't like being told what to do,especially with regard to religion.

Now though i am comfortable with living the way i choose,without feeling any obligations,and whether you are an atheist or a theist,i think having a religious education that isn't over the top,is a good thing.How can you really understand history, and our culture and traditions without having some religious knowledge.I'm also in favour of teaching the basics of other faiths too.

 

Absolutely. Many people forget that religion is part of their historical heritage and that their education (morals, ethics) is based on principles that come from religion.

[RootsBooster 24]

I have known atheists who have had religious upbringings and they have told me how good it felt to feel free and liberated without the guilt and restrictions that religion imposed on them.I used to feel a bit like that when i was younger because i was a quite resentful towards authority,and didn't like being told what to do,especially with regard to religion.

Now though i am comfortable with living the way i choose,without feeling any obligations,and whether you are an atheist or a theist,i think having a religious education that isn't over the top,is a good thing.How can you really understand history, and our culture and traditions without having some religious knowledge.I'm also in favour of teaching the basics of other faiths too.

 

Because "religious knowledge" is not the same as a "religious upbringing", you are confusing the two. Example: I didn't have a religious upbringing but I have knowledge of religions, perhaps more than many theists. I also understand the history I was taught.

[RootsBooster 24]

Absolutely. Many people forget that religion is part of their historical heritage and that their education (morals, ethics) is based on principles that come from religion.

 

While some of our morals may have come from our religious past, morals are not exclusive to religion and we have developed even more without it. The bible itself contains may contain moral ideals but teaches some of them terribly!

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

and whether you are an atheist or a theist,i think having a religious education that isn't over the top,is a good thing.

For what reasons do you think this?

 

How can you really understand history, and our culture and traditions without having some religious knowledge.

You can't. That is an argument for learning about history though, and not an argument for why those beliefs were true. I can understand John Calvin without having a belief in God.

 

The more I learn about religion, far beyond what I was taught at school, the more and more it moves me away from a belief in God. In Italy large families of banking dynasties were able to become Pope. How convenient that God's representative on earth just happened to be rich and powerful already.

 

Many people forget that religion is part of their historical heritage and that their education (morals, ethics) is based on principles that come from religion.

Which part of our ethics and morals come from religion?

 

Religion has always, and in all its forms, tried to tie itself together with morality. That only the Godly can be moral. It's an absolute fallacy, but the idea has existed for thousands of years, much longer than any modern religion, that it's still something that needs pointing out as false.

 

If your only reason for not killing someone is that you're scared God will punish you, then you are already amoral.

[janie48 98]

Because "religious knowledge" is not the same as a "religious upbringing", you are confusing the two. Example: I didn't have a religious upbringing but I have knowledge of religions, perhaps more than many theists. I also understand the history I was taught.

 

For what reasons do you think this?

 

 

You can't. That is an argument for learning about history though, and not an argument for why those beliefs were true. I can understand John Calvin without having a belief in God.

 

The more I learn about religion, far beyond what I was taught at school, the more and more it moves me away from a belief in God. In Italy large families of banking dynasties were able to become Pope. How convenient that God's representative on earth just happened to be rich and powerful already.

 

.

 

For goodness sake,i was only making a statement ( "How dare she imply that anything good came from religion")

I certainly wan't suggesting that all atheists don't have religious knowledge,and i've acknowledged before that many of them know more about religion then theists, especially the clever ones that have studied the bible.

I don't need a lesson about the corruption of church history either,i'm quite aware of it.

 

Dare i pass another remark i ask myself? ..................

Edited May 11, 2012 by janie48
deleted something off topic.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

For goodness sake,i was only making a statement

I don't understand your continuing unwillingness to answer any questions. If you make a statement then stand by it. Don't blame us for wanting to discuss it.

[janie48 98]

I don't understand your continuing unwillingness to answer any questions. If you make a statement then stand by it. Don't blame us for wanting to discuss it.

 

Thats a cheek! I've answered plenty of questions on this thread.Maybe they are just not the answers some people want to hear.You are making it appear i havn't contributed anything. As for my statement i stand by every word of it.