• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Superstition vs. Faith

Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
ecco said:
Our subjective experience tells us the world cannot be a sphere.
Our subjective experience tells us the moon and the sun are about the same size.
Our subjective experience tells us Jupiter and Betelgeuse are about the same size.

The ancients relied on their subjective experiences and came to these very conclusions. Science went beyond subjective experiences to discover truth.

Some people's subjective experience tells them they were anally probed by aliens.

Now, what were you saying about comments falling flat?






You are the one who referred to researchers. When I ask "which researchers" it is incumbent upon you to provide the names. If you want to have a serious discussion, don't tell me to check their references.
Click to expand...
It is perspectives of philosophers and thinkers based upon the work of researchers. If you'd like, I could sit and type out all the lists of names they use, or you could just care enough to look yourself. I cited Gebser. I cited Beck. Those are your starting points. Making it about a list of names, is a red herring.

You have no evidence to support your claim. I do. I cited references. You cited none. I don't think you actually are interested in anything that challenges your ideas which lack support.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Windwalker said:
My point is, that religion cannot be reduced down to those questions.
Click to expand...

I wasn't reducing religion down to a few basic curiosities. I was discussing the origins of gods and subsequently, religions. Remember, religions imply god worship. No gods, no religions.

Windwalker said:
There is no evidence that supports that in what we see culturally, historically, or even in the present world which researchers have studied in the various fields which deal with human evolution, biological, cultural, societal, mental, emotional, cognitive, etc.
Click to expand...

Linking to a commentary of a philosophical opinion is not evidence of anything.
 
Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
ecco said:
I wasn't reducing religion down to a few basic curiosities. I was discussing the origins of gods and subsequently, religions. Remember, religions imply god worship. No gods, no religions.
Click to expand...
You did not address how animism has no gods, nor how it exists prior in history to mythic gods systems. You are ignoring the data.

ecco said:
Linking to a commentary of a philosophical opinion is not evidence of anything.
Click to expand...
The hell it's not.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco said:
Religions are, by definition, built around the worship of gods. No gods, no religions.
Click to expand...
Windwalker said:
Not according to anthropologists. Animistic religions don't have gods. Animism

"Animism is really more a sensibility, tendency, or style of engaging with the world and the beings or things that populate it. It is not a form of materialism, which posits that only matter, materials, and movement exist. Nor is animism a form of monotheism, which posits a single god in the universe. And, it is not a form of polytheism that posits many gods."
Click to expand...


In past discussions with you, I noted that you tend to make up your own definitions and then try to argue from that standpoint. You are doing it again.

People also ask
Why is animism not considered a religion?
Animism Definition

Animism is often used to illustrate contrasts between ancient beliefs and modern organized religion. It most cases, animism is not considered to be a religion in its own right, but rather a feature of various practices and beliefs.Apr 5, 2019


re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun
  1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
I asked earlier "which researchers" and you basically told me to find them. Now you assert that anthropologists disagree with the definition of "religion". I have to ask: which anthropologists? Are you going to tell me that I need to look them up?
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Bird123 said:
Simply because something is written down does not mean it is not superstition.
If Jesus teaches judging, blaming, condemning, threats of Hell, favoritism of the kids, kids flawed from birth and such, it is no more than teaching people to value so many of the petty things mankind holds so dear. It is not a Higher Level. It is not God. It is no more than superstition, valuing the petty thing of wanting to control others through threats and intimidation. That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Click to expand...

First of all, one needs to know that the word hell fire comes from the word Gehenna.
Gehenna was just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed.
When King James translated the word Gehenna into English as hell fire that put the flames in hell.
So, it's false clergy (Not Jesus) who uses hell fire as a scare tactic on the flock of God.
Jesus did NOT threat with hell because biblical hell is just mankind's temporary stone-cold grave for the sleeping dead.
Notice what Jesus taught was from the OT at John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
The dead sleep, so a dead person is in hell or the grave, and asleep until Resurrection Day - Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
So, to me what is very clear is that false teachings are what is clear to you and Not clear as to what the Bible really teaches.

Think about this: False clergy teach No end to hell or hell fire.
Whereas, biblical hell comes to a final end according to Revelation 20:13-14.
After everyone in hell is ' delivered up ' (that means resurrected out of hell/grave) then emptied-out hell is cast empty into that symbolic 'second death' for vacated biblical hell.
 
Bird123

Bird123

Well-Known Member
URAVIP2ME said:
First of all, one needs to know that the word hell fire comes from the word Gehenna.
Gehenna was just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed.
When King James translated the word Gehenna into English as hell fire that put the flames in hell.
So, it's false clergy (Not Jesus) who uses hell fire as a scare tactic on the flock of God.
Jesus did NOT threat with hell because biblical hell is just mankind's temporary stone-cold grave for the sleeping dead.
Notice what Jesus taught was from the OT at John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
The dead sleep, so a dead person is in hell or the grave, and asleep until Resurrection Day - Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
So, to me what is very clear is that false teachings are what is clear to you and Not clear as to what the Bible really teaches.

Think about this: False clergy teach No end to hell or hell fire.
Whereas, biblical hell comes to a final end according to Revelation 20:13-14.
After everyone in hell is ' delivered up ' (that means resurrected out of hell/grave) then emptied-out hell is cast empty into that symbolic 'second death' for vacated biblical hell.
Click to expand...


I have noticed many people are starting to realize the cruelty of Hell. Just like horoscopes, they are trying their best to make things fit. If grave is what was meant, why do some not go there? Why not say grave? It does not add up.

Even if I said ok to that, what about all those other petty things??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top