Read...then discuss

[FredClaus]

I haven't read everyone's replies on this topic, but I want to say my two cents on the original post.  I am not a Catholic, but I am Christian. In my case the Holy Bible is my book in question, and yes I have read it.  Having read the book, it makes me question some of the things that I was taught in Sunday School. In my case the book is full of inconsistencies and can never be taken literally. You have to understand what it mean to the people it was written for and question is this "Timeless" or "Timely"? Was it meant for them at that moment or can it be true today. I think that's why over time the books of the bible contradict themselves in what they say. because the were written for a different group of people at a different time. 

 

Also, I like to point out that the bible was put together by man.  It may have been God inspired but man put it together. It was a council of men who said we should include these books and not these others.  On who's authority did they do that? Why did they not include those other books, and how different would our understanding be if they did? I think you need to read your respective book and then do your own research.  The founder of my religion was famous for having what they call the Wesley Quadrilateral.  Scripture, Experience, Reason, and Tradition. Yes, Scripture is important, but it's not the end all be all.  You need to form your views and your opinions on all four of these things in order to understand. 

 

After all, if Christianity was the ONLY way, why would God permit there to be a Muslim, Jewish, or other religions. If you think about it, the man we base the Christian faith on, was a Jew.  I think we can all have our own opinion on earth, but it isn't until our earthly life is over that we will fullly understand. No one here can tell me I'm wrong, and I can't tell you your views are wrong. Because we just don't know. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, FredClaus said:

I haven't read everyone's replies on this topic, but I want to say my two cents on the original post.  I am not a Catholic, but I am Christian. In my case the Holy Bible is my book in question, and yes I have read it.  Having read the book, it makes me question some of the things that I was taught in Sunday School. In my case the book is full of inconsistencies and can never be taken literally. You have to understand what it mean to the people it was written for and question is this "Timeless" or "Timely"? Was it meant for them at that moment or can it be true today. I think that's why over time the books of the bible contradict themselves in what they say. because the were written for a different group of people at a different time. 

 

Also, I like to point out that the bible was put together by man.  It may have been God inspired but man put it together. It was a council of men who said we should include these books and not these others.  On who's authority did they do that? Why did they not include those other books, and how different would our understanding be if they did? I think you need to read your respective book and then do your own research.  The founder of my religion was famous for having what they call the Wesley Quadrilateral.  Scripture, Experience, Reason, and Tradition. Yes, Scripture is important, but it's not the end all be all.  You need to form your views and your opinions on all four of these things in order to understand. 

 

After all, if Christianity was the ONLY way, why would God permit there to be a Muslim, Jewish, or other religions. If you think about it, the man we base the Christian faith on, was a Jew.  I think we can all have our own opinion on earth, but it isn't until our earthly life is over that we will fullly understand. No one here can tell me I'm wrong, and I can't tell you your views are wrong. Because we just don't know. 

 

 

That is an Agnostic perspective.     

[Key]

On 11/30/2017 at 8:51 AM, FredClaus said:

I haven't read everyone's replies on this topic, but I want to say my two cents on the original post.  I am not a Catholic, but I am Christian. In my case the Holy Bible is my book in question, and yes I have read it.  Having read the book, it makes me question some of the things that I was taught in Sunday School. In my case the book is full of inconsistencies and can never be taken literally. You have to understand what it mean to the people it was written for and question is this "Timeless" or "Timely"? Was it meant for them at that moment or can it be true today. I think that's why over time the books of the bible contradict themselves in what they say. because the were written for a different group of people at a different time. 

 

Also, I like to point out that the bible was put together by man.  It may have been God inspired but man put it together. It was a council of men who said we should include these books and not these others.  On who's authority did they do that? Why did they not include those other books, and how different would our understanding be if they did? I think you need to read your respective book and then do your own research.  The founder of my religion was famous for having what they call the Wesley Quadrilateral.  Scripture, Experience, Reason, and Tradition. Yes, Scripture is important, but it's not the end all be all.  You need to form your views and your opinions on all four of these things in order to understand. 

 

After all, if Christianity was the ONLY way, why would God permit there to be a Muslim, Jewish, or other religions. If you think about it, the man we base the Christian faith on, was a Jew.  I think we can all have our own opinion on earth, but it isn't until our earthly life is over that we will fullly understand. No one here can tell me I'm wrong, and I can't tell you your views are wrong. Because we just don't know. 

Many Fundamentalist would reply, "Because He gave us free will". The blanket response to many things, including why evil even exists.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Key said:

Many Fundamentalist would reply, "Because He gave us free will". The blanket response to many things, including why evil even exists.

 

In what possible sense of the word, can "free will" be "given"?  

 

A slave might be given free will, but only if that free will were supresed in the first place -- hence, the condition of slavery.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

In what possible sense of the word, can "free will" be "given"?  

 

A slave might be given free will, but only if that free will were supresed in the first place -- hence, the condition of slavery.

i, honestly, can not answer that. it has only been my experience that the answer I stated has often been given to me by Fundamentalist. Be they Methodist, Baptist, or whatever. Their response is often the same for many things, and vary according only to their bias.

Myself, I can not say what the answer may be for a God to allow many religions, even if some offend Him. Maybe to allow us to shape our thoughts on our own? I don't know.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, Key said:

i, honestly, can not answer that. it has only been my experience that the answer I stated has often been given to me by Fundamentalist. Be they Methodist, Baptist, or whatever. Their response is often the same for many things, and vary according only to their bias.

Myself, I can not say what the answer may be for a God to allow many religions, even if some offend Him. Maybe to allow us to shape our thoughts on our own? I don't know.

 

I could offer you my answers.  The problem is; I would be answering from my own bias.  I'm quite certain my answers would not work for you.  

[Key]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I could offer you my answers.  The problem is; I would be answering from my own bias.  I'm quite certain my answers would not work for you.  

Like the old commercial says, "you never know until you try!"

I am more often open minded than not, which allows me to absorb information that I might not otherwise have known. Try me, friend.

Whether it works, or not, we're only sharing in open conversation, at least.

[Brother Kaman]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I could offer you my answers.  The problem is; I would be answering from my own bias.  I'm quite certain my answers would not work for you.  

We all speak from our own biases.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Like the old commercial says, "you never know until you try!"

I am more often open minded than not, which allows me to absorb information that I might not otherwise have known. Try me, friend.

Whether it works, or not, we're only sharing in open conversation, at least.

 

As you like.  I find myself slipping from Agnosticism into a deeper Atheism.  As such, I'm reluctant to preach.  Well, here goes.

 

I find that Atheism makes complicated questions into simple propositions.

 

Why does evil exist?  Why do the good suffer while the evil prosper?  

 

The answer becomes simple.  Why not?  It's not as though there were a guiding sentient hand in control.

 

You ask why God permits different religions?  Why is there so much violence between followers of different religions?

 

If God existed, I would expect more uniformity in religion and less confusion.  If God did not exist -- I would expect world religion to be the confused mess that it is.  This alone suggests a simple absence of God.  I don't find anything at all confusing about this.  

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

46 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

We all speak from our own biases.  

 

Of course.  But when someone begins a conversation by declaring that he's a Christian -- do I want to preach or argue?  No.  I don't.  It still pushes my buttons big time when I'm preached at.  I don't want to preach at others -- and I have nothing to sell.  

[Key]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

As you like.  I find myself slipping from Agnosticism into a deeper Atheism.  As such, I'm reluctant to preach.  Well, here goes.

 

I find that Atheism makes complicated questions into simple propositions.

 

Why does evil exist?  Why do the good suffer while the evil prosper?  

 

The answer becomes simple.  Why not?  It's not as though there were a guiding sentient hand in control.

 

You ask why God permits different religions?  Why is there so much violence between followers of different religions?

 

If God existed, I would expect more uniformity in religion and less confusion.  If God did not exist -- I would expect world religion to be the confused mess that it is.  This alone suggests a simple absence of God.  I don't find anything at all confusing about this.  

 

 

Well, I didn't ask why God permits different religions. Someone else did. I simply stated that I don't know, and supposed it was due to allowing us to form our own thoughts and opinions on it.

Thanks for elaborating your position, though.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

Well, I didn't ask why God permits different religions. Someone else did. I simply stated that I don't know, and supposed it was due to allowing us to form our own thoughts and opinions on it.

Thanks for elaborating your position, though.

 

Alright.  Suppose that God exists and is behind religion. 

 

Which flower is the most pretty is a matter of opinion. 

 

Having an opinion about God should be the same as having an opinion about basic math.  It is either the right answer or the wrong answer.  If God exists and is behind religion.  It holds true for Monotheism.  It is false for Deism.  It is false for Pantheism.

 

If Polytheism is the case, and the gods care what we think, we should have good information about the gods.  If the gods care what we think.  If the gods are honest.  If the gods are accurate.

 

If Atheism is the case -- or Pantheism --  or Deism -- look around.  This is it.  In which case, nobody is in charge.

 

 

[Dan56]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:14 AM, Key said:

Many Fundamentalist would reply, "Because He gave us free will". The blanket response to many things, including why evil even exists.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth

 

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I could offer you my answers.  The problem is; I would be answering from my own bias.  I'm quite certain my answers would not work for you.  

 

Thank goodness I've never had that problem... Ya'll need to learn to be more open minded

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

You took the words right out of my mouth

 

 

Thank goodness I've never had that problem... Ya'll need to learn to be more open minded

 

 

[mererdog]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If Polytheism is the case, and the gods care what we think, we should have good information about the gods.  If the gods care what we think.  If the gods are honest.  If the gods are accurate.

Polytheism often involves gods of limited power. Gods that struggle and war and generally don't get their own way all the time. If that were the case, the world would not necessarily look the way the gods want it to.

[cuchulain]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

Polytheism often involves gods of limited power. Gods that struggle and war and generally don't get their own way all the time. If that were the case, the world would not necessarily look the way the gods want it to.

but it would look chaotic and disjointed with all that warring...wait, it IS that way!  Zeus forgive me!!!  

well, that's at least as good as the evidence presented by other religions.  i had a christian hand me a leaf as proof of god, once.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

but it would look chaotic and disjointed with all that warring...wait, it IS that way!  Zeus forgive me!!!  

well, that's at least as good as the evidence presented by other religions.  i had a christian hand me a leaf as proof of god, once.

 

 

Thinking worthy of a young child.  

[mererdog]

19 hours ago, cuchulain said:

i had a christian hand me a leaf as proof of god, once.

Ah, the age old "I can't think of a better answer, so it must be God." To be fair, though, I've seen atheists point to mosquitoes as proof that God doesn't exist. Conclusion-vaulting is not limited to any specific religious perspective.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 hours ago, mererdog said:

Ah, the age old "I can't think of a better answer, so it must be God." To be fair, though, I've seen atheists point to mosquitoes as proof that God doesn't exist. Conclusion-vaulting is not limited to any specific religious perspective.

 

 

The insect world has worse things than mosquitoes.  Much worse.  Parasites that devour the host from the inside out, then burst forth.

 

They don't prove that God does not exist.  Only, that God, the source of all things,  is not good.

 

 

[cuchulain]

20 hours ago, mererdog said:

Ah, the age old "I can't think of a better answer, so it must be God." To be fair, though, I've seen atheists point to mosquitoes as proof that God doesn't exist. Conclusion-vaulting is not limited to any specific religious perspective.

agreed.