And, Jack, I was going to respond to your post from last evening, but now I am sure what else to say…Does that mean we're not at war any more? Do we have a detente then? Cap't Jack
You mean I can't become Jewish even if I wanted to George?You can become Jewish, but it won't make you smart. :cheese:
Jack, you can convert to the Jewish religion, but you can't become an ethnic Jew. In addition, you are unlikely to be permitted to convert to Orthodox Judaism. As I understand it, to be an Orthodox Jew your biological mother must be Jewish. LoisJewish race, not faith. Only the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews are smart. The rest is not.You mean I can't become Jewish even if I wanted to George? I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Anyone may convert to Judiasm, it's been done literally for centuries. I was using it in that context. Cap't Jack
Thevillageatheist - 27 January 2014 08:12 AM You mean I can’t become Jewish even if I wanted to George? You can become Jewish, but it won’t make you smart.Drat! I guess I'll just stay a goy and be a smartass. Cap't Jack
http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2014/01/27/episode-124-religions-role-in-global-conflict/Reasonable Doubts latest podcast, #124 touched on this subject. They link to an article about religious violence today. It doesn’t say much about motivation, just who is involved and the title is really not fair since it compares the overall reduction in violence throughout human history to a very recent increase. Another link, to a study on what motivates people to enter Philosophy of Religion degree programs, further links into this somewhat disturbing study
http://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/ddabp.pdf. This one considers that the whole idea of a Center for Inquiry is problematic. While we’d all like to think that if two people examined the same evidence, they’d come to a similar conclusion or at least be influenced in a similar way, that doesn’t happen. If anything, the smarter you are, the more capable you are of applying good logical arguments for what you already believe and against that which you just don’t like. This pretty much explains our increasingly polarized world in the modern age of science. But before abandoning all hope, I think there is a lot of value to this. One, it suggests that when dealing with dogmatic people, it helps to acknowledge their dogmatism. Something nice like, “I understand that is sacred to you". And, it tells critical thinkers that they must be vigilant of their own bias. Don’t first look how to apply your logical arguing skills, first make sure you have applied your evidence evaluation skills. Also, an important note; I don’t think this study will ever be discussed in adult Sunday School. It is defining what dogmatic means. I don’t predict religious people will begin saying, “I understand that you have evaluated the evidence." This study is basically telling us to apply the “Outsider’s Test of Faith" in all situations. Churches are not likely to teach that.
Religion is anything man attempts by himself to do in order to please/appease a God. Jesus let the Pharisees have it for such vain and evil practices. He literally called them children of Satan. So religionists beware.
Christianity is a faith based on the DOINGS of one man and His finished work not ours. It’s a free gift! I dare to say it hardly even qualifies as a religion.
So yes religion (any set of mans ideas) done this way more often than not ends up hurting someone or some group when it’s done by mans own ideas/practices.
The Inquisition and such horrors follow doing things in the name of God. And the beat goes on…today and the future it will come in the same form…
I don’t have time to read this entire discussion now (I’ll try to return to it later) but obviously this topic has taken off. The opening post invites yet another unproductive discussion about whether the dog wags the tail or vice versa, knowing or perhaps oblivious to the fact that there’s no agreement which is the tail and which is the dog. Strictly speaking religion doesn’t “do” any of the things of which it is accused. However, some religions are put to destructive uses. So does that mean that religion is inherently flawed, that it’s generally misused, that it’s readily subject to abuse, that it’s occasionally misused or some combination of the foregoing? And when all of that gets packed and unpacked, have we said even one useful thing?
I think one person here calls himself Fuzzy Thinking. There’s a lot of fuzzy thinking on the one page that I did read.
Religion is anything man attempts by himself to do in order to please/appease a God. Jesus let the Pharisees have it for such vain and evil practices. He literally called them children of Satan. So religionists beware. Christianity is a faith based on the DOINGS of one man and His finished work not ours. It's a free gift! I dare to say it hardly even qualifies as a religion. So yes religion (any set of mans ideas) done this way more often than not ends up hurting someone or some group when it's done by mans own ideas/practices. The Inquisition and such horrors follow doing things in the name of God. And the beat goes on....today and the future it will come in the same form...You wrote, "Christianity is a faith based on the DOINGS of one man and His finished work not ours. It's a free gift! I dare to say it hardly even qualifies as a religion." You claim that because you embrace that religion. You have no evidence that the claimed "doings of one man and his finished work" is true. Anyone who embraces any religion can make a similar claim that his particular religion is the true one and therefore "hardly even qualifies as a religion." Do you not see that? Lois
Having read the remainder of the discussion, I am very encouraged, and impressed. Instead of getting bogged down in the old arguments over the meanings of words, this group focused on content, producing an excellent discussion that distinguished operationally between religious ideation, religious psychology, religious organization, etc. There also seems to be a sense of unity and camaraderie among group members that I can’t recall seeing before. Not that anyone needs my approval but to me this discussion is good news.
I’m using quick replies. Sorry for poor formatting.
Lois: “You claim that because you embrace that religion. You have no evidence that the claimed “doings of one man and his finished work” is true. Anyone who embraces any religion can make a similar claim that his particular religion is the true one and therefore “hardly even qualifies as a religion." Do you not see that?
Absolutely not true. How dare you tell me the reason I believe what I believe. That is so arrogant and presumptuous and so many here make these thoughtless remarks.
“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” That’s why it is evangelical and commanded to be preached to every nation and person. So you can try finding evidence till you croak. It’s an exercise in futility. Many asked for signs in order to believe. Jesus said basically the only sign I will give them is the sign of Jonah. People at the time of the early church witnessed Jesus and the Apostles doing miracles and they still wouldn’t believe. That’s just how many people are. That’s just how you are. Like them. That’s not presumptuous it’s clear from your demands for proof/evidence.
Better to ask someone of my faith why they believe in the God of the Bible. Faith isn’t built on evidence. It’s foundation is the Bible. You know that real book that has been around for ~3000 years that you can handle and read.? Ya that one. There’s some real evidence. A person must disprove the Bible story not ask for evidence like it’s a court case or a scientific study. Read Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell for that kind of evidential discussion as I’ve said before. Asking for the Bible to be proven true is an impossibility. I’m sure some smart philosopher here has a word to describe that error/expectation.
No other religion or faith has a prophesied Messiah that saves and sets free all of human kind from an impossible situation. That being death. Death was overcome and the Law fulfilled at Calvary. Salvation by grace was begun as a doctrine. Prior to Jesus and the new covenant faith was always produced by belief not evidence as in Abraham who was counted righteous by faith not works.
Besides there are evidences that the faith produces real change. They are listed in the NT. Unfortunately those who never taste it and try it will never experience or understand the evidences that come as described in the NT.
Having read the remainder of the discussion, I am very encouraged, and impressed. Instead of getting bogged down in the old arguments over the meanings of words, this group focused on content, producing an excellent discussion that distinguished operationally between religious ideation, religious psychology, religious organization, etc. There also seems to be a sense of unity and camaraderie among group members that I can't recall seeing before. Not that anyone needs my approval but to me this discussion is good news.That was nice of you to say. Lois
Rodin, there’s no other reason for you to believe it. No known facts support it and far beyond that, it makes no sense. Taken literally, biblical theology is preposterous. It doesn’t even make a good fairy tale, and its values taken as a whole are atrocious.
When you cite McDowell, the response you’ll get from people here will consist mainly of rolling eyes, though you may not see them roll. An old high school friend sent me his Evidence That Demands a Verdict in 2001. Because she was a good friend with a kind heart, I took the time to read it. My review, dated July 4, 2001, is still on Amazon. You can narrow your search by limiting it to the one-star reviews. Intellectually, the book is trash, and the reasons for that are (1) McDowell is practicing apologetics and (2) even within that field, he’s not very good at it: he’s trying to justify a conclusion, instead of looking at the evidence and reasoning through to the most reasonable conclusion. The method is completely backward, and of all the people who’ve ever done apologetics, McDowell is not someone to cite to anyone with a decent education or any substantial intelligence.
Sorry I put this response on the bottom of another port. Here it is:
Godless people and morality. F. Dostoyevsky said “without God all is permissible" What do you think he meant? Can there be a moral standard without God? Onto…
Josh McDowell in “More than a Carpenter" has in chapter4 called What about Science? gives a clear example of the fallacious inconsistent application of the scientific method that this forum is rife with …in my opinion. I’ll leave it as a study for others to look up scientific method based proofs vs Josh’s legal-historical type proof. This is the sort of proof that is used in legal proceedings.
He says “if the scientific method were the only method we had for proving facts, you couldn’t prove that you watched television last night or that you had lunch today.There’s no way you could repeat (and its only good for repeatable things) those events in a controlled situation.
The other method of proof, the legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We reach a verdict on the weight of the evidence (oral, written testimony and exhibits) and have no RATIONAL (logically sane) basis for doubting the decision. With this method to determine the facts you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had lunch today. Your friends , the waiter and a receipt prove this. SO…Jesus my friend, the Apostles-His servants and my brothers/sisters in Christ and the Bible and a boat load of history.
Get it? It’s used every day around the world and has been for millennia and with the exception of corruption because we are dealing with people, it is very reliable.
Well, there’s ten minutes I won’t be getting back.
Sorry, PLaClair, but I can’t help degrading the level of discussion here. 
I don’t know, George, I’m quite certain that if I were to become Jewish it would really smart. :lol:
Occam
Why do you guys bother with folks like rodin46? Every once and awhile these so called believers swoop in, make themselves feel good by apparently defending their faith, then swoop out all self-satisfied. I doubt Jesus would put up with such behavior. It’s downright unbecoming.
It can be entertaining, example, just watch one of them get disrespectful to Lausten, who has probably forgotten more about the bible than these guys will ever know. Lausten will clobber them with knowledge. Rodin46 has not been disrespectful yet, but I think he is on thin ice pushing the belief system and not sticking to a subject.
Godless people and morality. F. Dostoyevsky said “without God all is permissible" What do you think he meant? Can there be a moral standard without God? OntHi Rodin Nice to be chatting with you again. :) I was curious though, how can you logically decide if something is moral or not. Now granted, morality is subjective so it may not always be enough to prove a faith wrong. However, since it is subjective, why is a particular religious ruling necessarily more moral than a secular one? Taken this example: The death penalty and other punishments are sometimes controversial for various reasons. This is why China and other countires are sometimes put under some pressure to change their laws (putting aside the fact that many of those people who criticise hve never picked up a criminology book in thier life.) Who gets to decide if one ruling is more moral than the other?
Josh McDowell in “More than a Carpenter" has in chapter4 called What about Science? gives a clear example of the fallacious inconsistent application of the scientific method that this forum is rife with ...in my opinion. I’ll leave it as a study for others to look up scientific method based proofs vs Josh’s legal-historical type proof. This is the sort of proof that is used in legal proceedings.Why do we even hae to go there? Chrisitianity, like most religious traditions, doesn't have major issues with scientific procedure: The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought... the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule... but while Brooke’s view [religion and science relationship is complex] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press page ix http://books.google.ae/books?id=weOOCfiDhDcC&pg=PR9&dq=The+result+is+the+growing+recognition+among+historians+of+science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIWoUsrGMoKF4ASyt4D4Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The result is the growing recognition among historians of science&f=false