How do you tell the difference?

[Nimos]

God is an idea that we define for ourselves, as we choose, and then either trust in or we don't. The criteria of "objective evidence" is simply inapplicable.

I find that really strange, I mean you label yourself as a Christian, But I can't help wonder if you have read the bible? (And I don't mean that in a provocative way)
But I really don't see how your version of what God is and that he is something that we can just define however we feel like it, fits with the bible version? He is for the most part, very clear regarding what he likes and don't like, and also what happens to those that don't do as he like. And honestly it feels like the Golden calf, of you just creating your own version of God.

If God thought that anyone should be allowed to define him as whatever they feel like, why would he make so many laws? As a lot of these are what God find morally right or a justified way to deal with these things. If you simply remove the laws for instance that you don't like and say that you don't use them when you define your version of God, how do you justify anything, because you might as well remove all the things you don't like, and what you are left with have nothing to do with the biblical God. You simply borrowed the names, characters and used it as a framework to create your own God.

I have no problem with you doing it, that is your choice, but I also can't help thinking that you are not really fair or doing Christians a favour that actually do believe in the bible, because the God you will get from what you are doing, have nothing to do with what Christians that follow the bible believe.

There is a huge difference between two Christians, or as I did above with someone else, discussing how the story of Job should be understood, to simply outright removing it from the bible, because one doesn't think that it should be there when defining God. Even as an atheist, hardly believing any of it. I would object to it, out of respect for the bible the Christians and history that comes with it. Again, I want to stress that I have no issue, if that is what you believe, but I wouldn't label myself a Christian then, because it's just confusing.

Like praying for rain, and then seeing it rain. But this is of course a very loose and subjective understanding of evidence. Technically it is evidence, but it is very weak evidence since the correlation between asking God and receiving rain is not being reasonably established. There are people who will claim this to be "objective proof", but that does not make it so.

So if I try to use telekinesis to contact some Aliens somewhere in the Universe to get them to make rain here where I live within the next few month, then that is technical evidence for both telekinesis and that aliens exist, if it happens? And if I do it with trolls, pixies and fairies, then we technically have evidence for those as well, following this logic?

Im not sure, I would agree with that

People make such claims all the time, in writing, and with the presumed authority of academia. I do so, myself.

Just because people make claims doesn't make it true. There are some guidelines or "golden rules" within art design that seems to make it more appealing to us. But they are not absolutes, but guidelines or techniques.

I can claim "My God is THE God" til the cows come home, but there is no way I can know this to be so (even if it IS so)

Agree, but you can compare your idea of a God with the different scriptures that tells us about certain gods and see if they fit. If your idea doesn't then you ought not to refer to your god as that of such religion. Because it again causes confusion and is incorrect.

Even those people who choose to believe that a God exists understand that there may be no such God. They are not choosing to believe based on "objective evidence", They are choosing to believe based on faith. Faith being the decision to act on what they hope to be so, even though they cannot know it to be so.

Yes and they do that based on scriptures or what they are being told by others educated in these texts. Obviously some will bend the rules slightly, ignore or interpret some parts that they don't like, but they don't change the very foundation of the religion, in that case they stop believing in it and find a new one, or become an atheist or agnostic. And if they do choose to invent their own God, I have no problem with that, but also have no interest in it, because there is no basis for their belief, except what they made up.

Biblical text, like ALL text, must be interpreted. People who "believe the text" have interpreted it in a way that makes sense to them.

Yes, I agree, but they don't add new gods or goddesses to them, so it fits other religions, as I said above. There is a huge difference between interpret something actually written and just adding and removing stuff.

Of course they're 'made up'. But that does not mean they cannot convey important truths to us.

But if you agree that they are made up, why would you then refer to yourself as a Christian and not an atheist which loves the bible or something? Its really strange, if you don't believe in God of the bible and Jesus or any of the miraculous stories, why not call yourself an atheist or simply a believer in a creator, you have no evidence or reason to choose Christianity?

But there is no real "conflict" once we understand that it's ALL SUBJECTIVE. Everyone's idea of "God" is unique to themselves. Most theists understand this. Certainly all of them that I have ever come across.

I don't believe that is true, again you don't simply go on compromise with the amount of Gods in your religion, honestly im speechless when reading that. If what you are saying is actually true, religious people have less respect for their own scriptures than atheists have, and that tells a lot about the validity of religions, if that is the case, because I would refer to all those religious people that are doing that, as being straight up liars and dishonest, which have no respect for the religions that they say they follow.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

All the polytheistic gods are illusions. Even Hindus acknowledge that these idols are merely masks of Brahman, the only true source of the Universe.

I'm not sure Hindus get to speak for all polytheists (even if they agree with you) any more than a Christian gets to speak for all monotheists...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe the Bible says the heart is wicked and I suppose that is because everyone is a sinner.

Obviously I don't subscribe to that theory. But putting aside my personal beliefs for a moment...
I don't think it follows that 'everyone being a sinner' equates to the heart being wicked.
I'm making a few assumptions around your beliefs here, so forgive me, but there are sinners who are honestly trying to do their best, who do a lot of good in the world, but are...at the end of the day...flawed human beings. A strict interpretation of sin might then suggest we are ALL flawed and sinful, and for the moment let's assume we are.

Describing our hearts as 'wicked' seems to throw all sinners into a single group, and completely ignore the various amounts of 'non-sinful', altruistic, Godly, or however else you would like to describe it actions people do. There are far better people in the world than I, and some of them could only be declared 'sinful' by a very exacting, unachievable, and (in my opinion) unnatural standard. But to call them 'wicked'? Nope...I don't see it.

 

[sayak83]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

Logical inconsistency.
Moral inconsistency.
Inconsistency with what is well understood about the physical world.
Failed predictions (like end of the world).
Of course we need to also analyse if these problems are comming from the believers incorrect understanding or the primary tenets of the religion itself.

 

[PureX]

I find that really strange, I mean you label yourself as a Christian, But I can't help wonder if you have read the bible? (And I don't mean that in a provocative way)
But I really don't see how your version of what God is and that he is something that we can just define however we feel like it, fits with the bible version? He is for the most part, very clear regarding what he likes and don't like, and also what happens to those that don't do as he like. And honestly it feels like the Golden calf, of you just creating your own version of God.

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools until grade 10, and have read the Bible cover to cover. But as an adult I am a philosophical Taoist/Christian. Meaning I am profoundly agnostic even though I am choosing to trust in the idea that all humans have a spark of the 'divine spirit' within them, and that if we will allow ourselves to become the embodiment of that divine spirit (of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity) within us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help others to be healed and saved, in turn. And if enough of us finally decide to make this choice, the whole world will be healed and saved from mankind's current state of nihilistic insanity. And I am choosing to adhere to this ideal because I have found that it has worked as promised in my own life. And I have seen it work as promised in the lives of others.

Whatever God is or is not, that divine spark of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity does exist within us and it will heal us and save us from ourselves if we will give ourselves over to it. And from my interpretation of the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (as the Christ), this is the revelation and promise being conveyed. But I don't pretend that God wrote the story. Nor do I pretend that every word of the story is historical. I recognize myth when I see it, and I appreciate it for what it is.

If God thought that anyone should be allowed to define him as whatever they feel like, why would he make so many laws?

The only laws God has made that I can consider are those that determined the ways energy could and could not express itself in the Big Bang; resulting in the Cosmos as we experience it.

As a lot of these are what God find morally right or a justified way to deal with these things. If you simply remove the laws for instance that you don't like and say that you don't use them when you define your version of God, how do you justify anything, because you might as well remove all the things you don't like, and what you are left with have nothing to do with the biblical God. You simply borrowed the names, characters and used it as a framework to create your own God.

According to my understanding of Christ's message, that divine spirit within us transcends man's secular and religious laws; rendering them unnecessary. Laws are for the lost, For those who have become lost to their own self-centered fears and desires and so don't know how to behave.

I also can't help thinking that you are not really fair or doing Christians a favour that actually do believe in the bible, because the God you will get from what you are doing, have nothing to do with what Christians that follow the bible believe.

We are all choosing for ourselves how we interpret this experience of being human. No one is beholding to mine, and I am not beholding to anyone else's.

There is a huge difference between two Christians, or as I did above with someone else, discussing how the story of Job should be understood, to simply outright removing it from the bible, because one doesn't think that it should be there when defining God. Even as an atheist, hardly believing any of it. I would object to it, out of respect for the bible the Christians and history that comes with it. Again, I want to stress that I have no issue, if that is what you believe, but I wouldn't label myself a Christian then, because it's just confusing.

I don't understand why you think there shouldn't be these differences. Everyone is choosing their own interpretation of the text according to their own understanding of life. Even those who claim they adhere 'religiously' to some dictated dogma they have been given by others, that is still THEIR CHOICE. And they could choose otherwise at any time. We all can, always.

Agree, but you can compare your idea of a God with the different scriptures that tells us about certain gods and see if they fit. If your idea doesn't then you ought not to refer to your god as that of such religion. Because it again causes confusion and is incorrect.

Religions aren't just scripture. They are a whole collection of people, images, texts, rituals, rules, traditions, admonishments, and so on intended to help people live according to their chosen theological position. I don't consider myself religious because I don't employ these religious tools. But I still agree with the general principals that I find being conveyed by the 'Story of Christ'.

But if you agree that they are made up, why would you then refer to yourself as a Christian and not an atheist which loves the bible or something? Its really strange, if you don't believe in God of the bible and Jesus or any of the miraculous stories, why not call yourself an atheist or simply a believer in a creator, you have no evidence or reason to choose Christianity?

"The Little Engine That Could" is also a made up story. It is 'untrue' in that sense. But the message the story conveys about persistence and determination are real, and true, and have been across many, many generations. So I can acknowledge the fiction while I also acknowledge the truth. I understand that this is how mythology (and artifice) functions: as both. Can't you?

 

[Nimos]

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools until grade 10, and have read the Bible cover to cover. But as an adult I am a philosophical Taoist/Christian. Meaning I am profoundly agnostic even though I am choosing to trust in the idea that all humans have a spark of the 'divine spirit' within them, and that if we will allow ourselves to become the embodiment of that divine spirit (of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity) within us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help others to be healed and saved, in turn. And if enough of us finally decide to make this choice, the whole world will be healed and saved from mankind's current state of nihilistic insanity. And I am choosing to adhere to this ideal because I have found that it has worked as promised in my own life. And I have seen it work as promised in the lives of others.

Whatever God is or is not, that divine spark of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity does exist within us and it will heal us and save us from ourselves if we will give ourselves over to it. And from my interpretation of the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (as the Christ), this is the revelation and promise being conveyed. But I don't pretend that God wrote the story. Nor do I pretend that every word of the story is historical. I recognize myth when I see it, and I appreciate it for what it is.

I can understand this and the noble idea behind it, but I just don't see why you would bring Christianity into it or any religions for that matter and not just label yourself with Humanism? Because it seems to be exactly what you say here.

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

Humanism doesn't assign labels to people, like religion does. So if your goal is to unite humans, why then label or identify yourself as part of a religious group? I myself support humanism as the only way to do such thing. When we as humans take responsibility for all the **** we are doing. So don't get me wrong, I support the purpose you are promoting here.

The only laws God has made that I can consider are those that determined the ways energy could and could not express itself in the Big Bang; resulting in the Cosmos as we experience it.

This is where it gets messy, because the scriptures are the foundations of these religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Obviously with differences, but these are the only sources we have for these religions. So if we want to learn something about what the God in these religions wants or command, we have to rely on that those that wrote them knew what they were talking about. Obviously you can conclude that you do not believe them, as atheists does, or that some things can be interpret differently, if they are not clear.

But if you have read the bible, you must also be aware that at least the first books contains a lot of laws dictated by God. You also have Jesus telling that people are saved by doing the will of God, meaning following the law. You have the Christians that interpret some parts of the bible as meaning that the laws doesn't apply anymore, but they don't reject that these are/were Gods laws.

So what confuses me as I said above,is that you do not seem to care about the scriptures and basically think they are all made up, but you seem to even take it a step further than atheists does, as you seem to simply change them to whatever you feel like. Obviously you are entitled to interpret them as you want, in fact a lot of people are educated in these text and how they are understood, even though they might disagree, they at least make a case for why they think they mean what they do. But to me, it seems like this is not something you care about doing?

According to my understanding of Christ's message, that divine spirit within us transcends man's secular and religious laws; rendering them unnecessary. Laws are for the lost, For those who have become lost to their own self-centered fears and desires and so don't know how to behave.

So how would you interpret this?

Matthew 7:21-23
21 - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 - On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 - And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

I don't understand why you think there shouldn't be these differences. Everyone is choosing their own interpretation of the text according to their own understanding of life. Even those who claim they adhere 'religiously' to some dictated dogma they have been given by others, that is still THEIR CHOICE. And they could choose otherwise at any time. We all can, always.

Again, as I said. There is a huge difference between interpret something and simply removing and adding things, because one doesn't think that it define God from those scriptures.

Religions aren't just scripture. They are a whole collection of people, images, texts, rituals, rules, traditions, admonishments, and so on intended to help people live according to their chosen theological position. I don't consider myself religious because I don't employ these religious tools. But I still agree with the general principals that I find being conveyed by the 'Story of Christ'.

Yes, but without the scriptures, there is a huge chance that these religions wouldn't survive. We know that early humans had kind of religions, and that they worshipped animals/spirits etc. But exactly what they did and how they did it, we don't know. because there is no scriptures telling us how they did it. So there is no religion without some sort of message that we can understand.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Read the reply in #124, I would reply the same to you

I have no problems with the differences between different religions, even between different monotheisms. We perceive the divine poorly, as our God radar is only recently evolved and very primitive, like an eye that senses only light and dark. It is a case of the blind men and the elephant -- do you know this story?

 

[Nimos]

I have no problems with the differences between different religions, even between different monotheisms. We perceive the divine poorly, as our God radar is only recently evolved and very primitive, like an eye that senses only light and dark. It is a case of the blind men and the elephant -- do you know this story?

No don't know that story. But I find it strange, that here we have the creator of mankind, which created us and saw that it was good. He went on a "journey" clearly communicating with the Jews and giving them the promised land, helped them out of slavery from the Egyptians, send angels to Earth, gave the jews laws. And now we suddenly perceive the divine poorly?

We are possibly talking about the most important time in human history here and now we suddenly can't communicate or perceive God, or he doesn't want to communicate with us. Doesn't that tell us something about God, that either he have given up on us or maybe he never existed?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

I believe there is only one true God (the real God) that revealed all the true religions, so I do not have to choose.
Logically then, if a religion is not a true religion then the God(s) believed by people of that religion are not real.

 

[PureX]

I can understand this and the noble idea behind it, but I just don't see why you would bring Christianity into it or any religions for that matter and not just label yourself with Humanism? Because it seems to be exactly what you say here.

You don't need to see it. And neither does anyone else. From my perspective it is an ideal that springs from and is exemplified by the story of Christ. And from my understanding of it.

Jesus was a Jew, and remained a Jew even unto his death at the behest of the Jewish high priests. He was not starting a new religion. And Jews then and now are not evangelical. They do not believe anyone needs to convert to Judaism. His message was of a universal spiritual nature, not a religious one. The religion that sprung up in his name is it's own entity. As are the various factions within it.

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

Humanism doesn't assign labels to people, like religion does. So if your goal is to unite humans, why then label or identify yourself as part of a religious group? I myself support humanism as the only way to do such thing. When we as humans take responsibility for all the **** we are doing. So don't get me wrong, I support the purpose you are promoting here.

Labels are what they are. I am also a humanist if that suits your need for a label. I am also an artist, a liberal, and a fat old white man. I am a lot of things to a lot of people, all at the same time. And don't forget the Taoist part, because that is very important if one wants to understand how I think, and why, in theological/philosophical terms.

This is where it gets messy, because the scriptures are the foundations of these religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Obviously with differences, but these are the only sources we have for these religions.

Religions are far bigger than their respective texts. Culture, politics, geography, and history all significantly contribute to create a religion. The texts are just the documentation after the fact.

So if we want to learn something about what the God in these religions wants or command, we have to rely on that those that wrote them knew what they were talking about. Obviously you can conclude that you do not believe them, as atheists does, or that some things can be interpret differently, if they are not clear.

I am not much interested in anyone else's idea of God. I know they don't know any ore about it than I do. And they never did. (Because they are just as human as I am, and therefor just as limited in their ability to 'know God' as I am.) All that interests me on the subject are the possibilities that the god-mystery presents to me. And I take it from there.

But if you have read the bible, you must also be aware that at least the first books contains a lot of laws dictated by God.

God did not write the Bible or anything else, nor create any laws except the laws of nature. Specific groups of humans did that in specific times and places in the world.

You also have Jesus telling that people are saved by doing the will of God, meaning following the law.

Not by "following the law"; by embodying the divine spirit within. When Jesus talked about following religious law, he was a Jew talking to other Jews. As Jews, they were to continue being Jews, and following Jewish law. He was not talking to us. He was not trying to convert us to his religion. He was talking about a spiritual revelation, and a promise, that anyone, religious or not, could benefit from.

You have the Christians that interpret some parts of the bible as meaning that the laws doesn't apply anymore, but they don't reject that these are/were Gods laws.

That would be inherently contradictory. So I think they are confused.

So what confuses me as I said above,is that you do not seem to care about the scriptures and basically think they are all made up, but you seem to even take it a step further than atheists does, as you seem to simply change them to whatever you feel like. Obviously you are entitled to interpret them as you want, in fact a lot of people are educated in these text and how they are understood, even though they might disagree, they at least make a case for why they think they mean what they do. But to me, it seems like this is not something you care about doing?

I am doing this, in response to you 'issues'. But it's complicated. I am also a Taoist, with equal conviction, and that also would take a lot of time to explain. Also, I see no reason that I should need to explain. I am not here to 'convert' anyone.

So how would you interpret this?

Matthew 7:21-23
21 - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 - On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 - And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Pompous religiosity and theatrical displays were antithetical to the spiritual message that Jesus was trying to convey. He often spoke against these. It's partly why the high priests were so intent on shutting him up.

Again, as I said. There is a huge difference between interpret something and simply removing and adding things, because one doesn't think that it define God from those scriptures.

I'm not removing or adding anything. But the story is mythological. It is meant to be interpreted for it's meaning, not taken blindly as a literal fact.

Yes, but without the scriptures, there is a huge chance that these religions wouldn't survive. We know that early humans had kind of religions, and that they worshipped animals/spirits etc. But exactly what they did and how they did it, we don't know. because there is no scriptures telling us how they did it. So there is no religion without some sort of message that we can understand.

So what? Religions are useful to us until they aren't. Their purpose is their usefulness. When that is gone, they are gone. As it should be.

 

[Nimos]

Jesus was a Jew, and remained a Jew even unto his death at the behest of the Jewish high priests. He was not starting a new religion. And Jews then and now are not evangelical. They do not believe anyone needs to convert to Judaism. His message was of a universal spiritual nature, not a religious one. The religion that sprung up in his name is it's own entity. As are the various factions within it.

I think part of what you are saying is true, I don't agree that his message was universal, it might have turned into it. But as you say, he was a Jew and he cared about the Jews.

The reason I don't think his message is meant to be universal, but something that is first added later, requires some historical explanation of what was going on in Israel at the time. Now, I will admit that I obviously don't know this for certain, and some of it is making some assumptions, so I don't claim that it is the absolute truth, so you should fact check it. But merely that I think it could give a reasonable explanation for why I don't think that his message was universal.

Jesus were clearly religious and cared about it, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, whether he is the son of God or not. Reading the bible, it is clear that Jesus does not like the Pharisees, yet these were seen as highly important religious people at the time, which claimed authority of interpret the Jewish law. And as you might know, Jesus refer to them as being hypocrites and other bad words. Which could indicate that Jesus thought that they were exploiting their position of power, as the authority of the Jewish laws (God's laws). Now assuming that Jesus were a true believer, I would assume him seeing this, would be much like when we today, see how big companies or organisations can get away with wrongdoings, because they have the power to do so. We think its wrong, because they spit on the average people with expensive lawyers etc. while normal people might be jailed or fined etc.

Seeing it in that context, I don't believe that Jesus tried to save the world, but wanted to get back to following the law and get rid of the corruption, that the Pharisees caused. This also explain, why Jesus told people to follow the laws and not him, and to not listen to the Pharisees. Also remember that Jesus say that he did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it, and that nothing should be changed until a new Earth and Heaven comes. And if you read Jesus teachings, he is actually making the law even "harder" to follow than it used to, if you remember the verses where Jesus preach is often written like... "You were told this... but I tell you, to not only do that, but also this..." along those lines.

Here is an example of Jesus having a go at the Pharisees for instance:
Mark 7:5-13
5 - And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
6 - And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7 - in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 - You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
9 - And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
10 - For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
11 - But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—
12 - then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
13 - thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

So again Jesus did not like or agree with the Pharisees, so to me, this is the message Jesus wanted to give to the Jews and get the law back to them, it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Labels are what they are. I am also a humanist if that suits your need for a label. I am also an artist, a liberal, and a fat old white man. I am a lot of things to a lot of people, all at the same time. And don't forget the Taoist part, because that is very important if one wants to understand how I think, and why, in theological/philosophical terms.

But you do see the issue with a religious label as a humanist right? Because religions are built around grouping people, you belong to that group or you don't. If you belong to a religious group, you are special and better than others, you are favoured by God while others ain't, you are saved because you belong to the "special" group.

Humanism support the idea that all humans are equal, completely opposite to religions.

Religions are far bigger than their respective texts. Culture, politics, geography, and history all significantly contribute to create a religion. The texts are just the documentation after the fact.

Religions really are not, if you removed the bible from existences, there would be no Christianity, Judaism or Islam. There would be no foundation for the Abrahamic God at all.

God did not write the Bible or anything else, nor create any laws except the laws of nature. Specific groups of humans did that in specific times and places in the world.

Do you at least believe that the law was divine inspired by God? Because I completely fail to see, where you get your justification for believing in the biblical God at all. Because you seem to share the view with atheists that the bible is not divine in anyway. Yet you have jumped on the wagon as if it is. To me that is like me saying that, I know that the loch ness monster is completely made up, yet I choose to believe it live in Loch ness, its simply make no sense to me

That would be inherently contradictory. So I think they are confused.

No its not. Its no different than some religions claim that Jesus is a prophet, others that he is part of the holy trinity and others that he is simply the son of God. But none of them deny the existence of Jesus, they interpret it differently. Exactly as I did above with the question about whether or not his message was universal or not.

Pompous religiosity and theatrical displays were antithetical to the spiritual message that Jesus was trying to convey. He often spoke against these. It's partly why the high priests were so intent on shutting him up.

Or it could be as I stated above, Jesus was a believer in God and God gave the Jews the laws, and the Pharisees is misusing their position as the authority of what the law is. And Jesus tell people, that he don't want them to just follow him for doing so, but to follow the law as God has given them. If you look in the OT, God also say that no one is saved, except by him. Exactly as Jesus is saying, you want to be saved, you do the will of God.

I'm not removing or adding anything. But the story is mythological. It is meant to be interpreted for it's meaning, not taken blindly as a literal fact.

But you are, this whole chat, started with you having no issues, adding Taoism, which have lots of gods and goddesses into it, as if it was no problem with Christianity, when there is clearly only one God in Christianity. There are no other goddesses or gods on pair with God.

 

[PureX]

I think part of what you are saying is true, I don't agree that his message was universal, it might have turned into it. But as you say, he was a Jew and he cared about the Jews.

Universality is not determined by the messenger, but by those who find applicable value in the message. It's not so much what Jesus intended, as what we perceived and made of his message.

I don't believe that Jesus tried to save the world, but wanted to get back to following the law and get rid of the corruption, that the Pharisees caused.

To what end, if not our "salvation"? What is the point of righteousness if not the reward?

... So again Jesus did not like or agree with the Pharisees, so to me, this is the message Jesus wanted to give to the Jews and get the law back to them, it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Maybe, but I don't see it that way. He told his fellow Jews to obey the Jewish laws, but he also told them that those laws have been fulfilled by the divine spirit of God within them, if they are will embody it. He gave them only one law: to love God and love their neighbor as themselves. To live in that spirit of love is to live in the fulfillment of all divine law.

But you do see the issue with a religious label as a humanist right? Because religions are built around grouping people, you belong to that group or you don't. If you belong to a religious group, you are special and better than others, you are favoured by God while others ain't, you are saved because you belong to the "special" group.

That's just a flaw of our human bias. I see no reason to give it credence by playing into it.

Humanism support the idea that all humans are equal, completely opposite to religions.

That's a value-relative notion. Most religions and their adherents would agree, at least in principal. It's only the more extreme few that set themselves above everyone else.

Religions really are not, if you removed the bible from existence, there would be no Christianity, Judaism or Islam. There would be no foundation for the Abrahamic God at all.

... Or a dictionary.

Do you at least believe that the law was divine inspired by God?

Laws (and religions) are inspired by many things. God is just one of them.

Because I completely fail to see, where you get your justification for believing in the biblical God at all.

I don't 'believe' nor 'disbelieve' in God. I am agnostic on the question of God. To me, it is a great mystery with many interesting possibilities. I contemplate those possibilities, and I choose to trust in those that I think can make mine and others lives better.

Because you seem to share the view with atheists that the bible is not divine in anyway. Yet you have jumped on the wagon as if it is.

Many things can be divinely inspired. Including the writers of religious texts. But being divinely inspired does not make anyone infallible, or omniscient. So I do not presume that what they wrote is infallible or unquestionable. They are still humans like the rest of us. And their writings contain all the same flaws and biases as any others.

That doesn't mean they are without value. But the value has to be discerned from the value-less. And that takes some time, and effort, and thought, and experience. We can either do this for ourselves, or blindly accept the determinations of others, or we can do some bit of both, I suppose. That's up to us. But I have never been a good follower. There's nothing wrong with being a follower. I'm just not made that way.

But you are, this whole chat, started with you having no issues, adding Taoism, which have lots of gods and goddesses into it, as if it was no problem with Christianity, when there is clearly only one God in Christianity. There are no other goddesses or gods on pair with God.

Taoism is not a religion. It makes no claims one way or another about any gods. It simply accepts that perceiving/inventing gods is part of the "Tao (way) of Man", and leaves it at that. And because Taoism does not negate such superstitions, some factions of Taoism have morphed to become superstition-based religions with many gods and demigods. Like Shinto, for example. But the gods don't really have anything to do with Taoism, or Taoist philosophy. It's just that Taoism does not negate or discourage them.

 

[Marcion]

Taoism is not a religion. It makes no claims one way or another about any gods. It simply accepts that perceiving/inventing gods is part of the "Tao (way) of Man", and leaves it at that. And because Taoism does not negate such superstitions, some factions of Taoism have morphed to become superstition-based religions with many gods and demigods. Like Shinto, for example. But the gods don't really have anything to do with Taoism, or Taoist philosophy. It's just that Taoism does not negate or discourage them.

The interesting thing is that the Chinese word 'Tao' is derived from Sanskrit Tantra and also the 'To' in Shinto is derived from it. Tantra also is not a religion but allows the use of gods in its spiritual techniques.

 

[Nimos]

Universality is not determined by the messenger, but by those who find applicable value in the message. It's not so much what Jesus intended, as what we perceived and made of his message.

Yes and no, I agree, that the purpose of something can expand or what to say. Im obviously talking about Jesus himself, intended purpose. I wouldn't deny that others can find meaning in it, in fact I think people does that all the time, simply watching movies and reading books.

To what end, if not our "salvation"? What is the point of righteousness if not the reward?

Not sure I completely understand what you mean. I don't say that Jesus didn't have his reasons, simply that I think he was convinced that the religion he believed in as getting screwed with.

Not really a lot different than if you care about something that is important to you and you find a lot of value in and suddenly someone starts to screw with it and exploit it and turn it into something else.

Maybe, but I don't see it that way. He told his fellow Jews to obey the Jewish laws, but he also told them that those laws have been fulfilled by the divine spirit of God within them, if they are will embody it. He gave them only one law: to love God and love their neighbor as themselves. To live in that spirit of love is to live in the fulfillment of all divine law.

I think you might be misunderstanding this or mixing somethings together. It is true that Jesus give a new commandment, but it is to his disciples in John.

The one you refer to is not a new commandment. But Jesus answering a question from the Pharisees that tries to test him.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 - But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 - And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
36 - “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
37 - And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
38 - This is the great and first commandment.
39 - And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 - On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

As you can see, the Pharisees refer to what is already in the Law, and Jesus tells them in the last sentence, that the law and prophets depend on these commandments. Put it into context, why would Jesus give new commandments to the Pharisees which he don't like? He knows they are not following it as they should, given that he constantly talk bad about them.

What Jesus say here is nothing new. God "loves" his people which is why he gets so frustrated with them and kills a lot of them, whenever they do stuff he don't like.

That's just a flaw of our human bias. I see no reason to give it credence by playing into it.

It was not exactly meant as a game, I mean if someone is labelled a nazi, its pretty damn real

That's a value-relative notion. Most religions and their adherents would agree, at least in principal. It's only the more extreme few that set themselves above everyone else.

It is written in scriptures, I know you don't care about them. But basically it's no different than with anything else. A person might say that they are a fan of this football team and then cheer for them and buhh at the other teams. But ok, fair enough.

Taoism is not a religion. It makes no claims one way or another about any gods. It simply accepts that perceiving/inventing gods is part of the "Tao (way) of Man", and leaves it at that. And because Taoism does not negate such superstitions, some factions of Taoism have morphed to become superstition-based religions with many gods and demigods. Like Shinto, for example. But the gods don't really have anything to do with Taoism, or Taoist philosophy. It's just that Taoism does not negate or discourage them.

Again, Im not here to try to convince you what you should and shouldn't label yourself. I just found it an interesting way

 

[PureX]

Yes and no, I agree, that the purpose of something can expand or what to say. Im obviously talking about Jesus himself, intended purpose. I wouldn't deny that others can find meaning in it, in fact I think people does that all the time, simply watching movies and reading books.

We don't know "Jesus himself". Jesus is just a character in a story, now. Everything else is OUR speculation. We are determining who Jesus was. We are determining what his message was. And we are determining that it's universal.

Not sure I completely understand what you mean. I don't say that Jesus didn't have his reasons, simply that I think he was convinced that the religion he believed in as getting screwed with.

Not really a lot different than if you care about something that is important to you and you find a lot of value in and suddenly someone starts to screw with it and exploit it and turn it into something else.

But keep in mind that you are imposing this motive on the character and events. Which says more about you than about the character and events. This is how we become invested in these kinds of mythical stories. And how they becomes important to so many of us, simultaneously. The story is just a story. Everything else is us.

I think you might be misunderstanding this or mixing somethings together. It is true that Jesus give a new commandment, but it is to his disciples in John.

The one you refer to is not a new commandment. But Jesus answering a question from the Pharisees that tries to test him.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 - But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 - And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
36 - “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
37 - And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
38 - This is the great and first commandment.
39 - And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 - On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

As you can see, the Pharisees refer to what is already in the Law, and Jesus tells them in the last sentence, that the law and prophets depend on these commandments. Put it into context, why would Jesus give new commandments to the Pharisees which he don't like? He knows they are not following it as they should, given that he constantly talk bad about them.

He is explaining to them that all law is based on the "law of love": that divine spirit within us (love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity). Because he can see that they do not understand this.

Im not here to try to convince you what you should and shouldn't label yourself. I just found it an interesting way

"Tao" essentially means "way". Or more specifically, the way existence exists. The 'flow of being'. Taoism is based on the recognition of human limitation. On the idea that we humans are a sort of hybrid living between the physical realm of being and the divine realm of being. We are more than just a dumb animal, and yet we are not fully able to grasp the divine realm from which the physical springs, and of which the physical realm is a reflection. Thus, we live in a kind of perpetual dilemma: a mystery that we are able to recognize, but not able to resolve.

To the taoist, the solution to this perpetual dilemma is not to try and unravel it, but to align ourselves with the way it "flows". Because in doing this, we can fulfill our place in the whole without having to understand it all (which we cannot). The goal is to 'embody the Tao', not to 'figure it out' so we can anticipate it, and thereby control it; which is how we humans tend to want to deal with everything we encounter. So in terms of religions, a taoist sees them as just a part of the flow of mankind. A part of the way we humans exist. Which, as is true of all things, has it's 'yin' and 'yang' aspects. So the taoist seeks not to promote nor discourage religion, but simply to accept is as a natural aspect of human existence, which can be both positive and negative, simultaneously. As all things are (from our limited, 'binary' human perspective).

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

Good questions. For me the answer of which God is the real one, is known because of the fulfilled prophecy found in the word of the true God. I find so much fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, that I believe that shows who the true God is.

For example all the prophecy about the four world kingdoms that would come to be, found in the book of Daniel. And the 70 year Babylonian Captivity, and many other prophecies. The prophecies are so accurate that the naysayers have to try to claim that they had to have been written after the fact.

And once you believe in the true God and start praying and seeking him, he shows himself real to you. Once he starts answering your prayers and moving for you - then you know for sure he is real.

 

[syo]

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

The wrong ones make no sense.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

I go with an open minded many-gods theory to things and while a god could trick someone into believing they're another god for example, it really doesn't make much difference to me provided the purpose of the god is aligned with what I'm asking of the other god. Maybe it would if my gods had different rulesets attached to them or something and in my understanding, but they don't.

 

[Muffled]

Obviously I don't subscribe to that theory. But putting aside my personal beliefs for a moment...
I don't think it follows that 'everyone being a sinner' equates to the heart being wicked.
I'm making a few assumptions around your beliefs here, so forgive me, but there are sinners who are honestly trying to do their best, who do a lot of good in the world, but are...at the end of the day...flawed human beings. A strict interpretation of sin might then suggest we are ALL flawed and sinful, and for the moment let's assume we are.

Describing our hearts as 'wicked' seems to throw all sinners into a single group, and completely ignore the various amounts of 'non-sinful', altruistic, Godly, or however else you would like to describe it actions people do. There are far better people in the world than I, and some of them could only be declared 'sinful' by a very exacting, unachievable, and (in my opinion) unnatural standard. But to call them 'wicked'? Nope...I don't see it.

I believe God see it differently:
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,

I believe a person can try with the mind but the heart knows what it wants:
Matt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

I believe it is God's standard of perfection and only God can achieve it which is why people need Him as Savior.

 

[Muffled]

Logical inconsistency.
Moral inconsistency.
Inconsistency with what is well understood about the physical world.
Failed predictions (like end of the world).
Of course we need to also analyse if these problems are comming from the believers incorrect understanding or the primary tenets of the religion itself.

I believe those are flawed criteria:

I believe God is not always logical. For instance one has to die in order to live.

I believe differences in morality don't tell one which morality is correct or even if it is only a temporal morality.

I believe one can't call the prediction of the end of the world failed if it doesn't have a date for it to happen.

I believe we do not know everything about our world but more often than not the problem is not with the scripture but men's interpretation of it.