Mickey Mouse thinks religious belief is............. (page 12)

tec

But nothing Jesus taught suggests anything special, in fact I think he is over-rated. That's not to say he didn't say some worthwhile things but so did others.

I think his teachings suggest such things as quite special... but we can disagree to that for now. I also do not disparage any of these others who understood truth, at all. But did these others claim to have come from God, to have seen God, to have been a promised Messiah. To be the living image of God?

The point is not that his teachings tell us that he is the Christ, the Son of God... but rather, how could someone who taught the truth He taught, lived the way he lived (honest, merciful, giving, obedient)... then turn around and be liar at the same time? So if I have put my faith in Him, then I put my faith in ALL that he taught and not just some of it. Faith that His Father is God; that we see God by looking through Christ; that Christ came from God; that Christ returned to God and will also return for all those who belong to Him.

Confucius gave credit to others before him for his wisdom, Jesus had no such modesty.

Christ gave all credit to His Father... ALL of it... and took none for Himself.

Interesting that Conficius taught the importance of devotion to family while Jesus taught that family should be abandoned in order to follow him.

No, He taught that God should come first. Not out of selfishness... but out of sense. If your mother/father/brother/sister is wrong and committing harm... then you don't follow them. You know not to follow them if you are following Christ and God. Such as with the witnesses. Say someone in your family shuns someone who is df'd; showing them no mercy or forgiveness or love. If you loved your mother more than Christ and God, then you might follow her in her wrong. If you loved Christ and God more, then you won't follow her, you will follow Christ... AND give your mother a better witness to Christ, and perhaps even help her to see that she is in the wrong and then corrects her behavior.

...and Jesus never spoke out for women's rights, gave support for anti-slavery measures or preached tolerance for gender preferences outside the norm. Seems like he played safe.

He should not have had to, Q. He led by e x ample. He treated women with the same regard - had disciples who were women, spoke to women, gave credit to Mary for choosing to listen to Him over doing 'womens work'. Love others as I have loved you, was his new command. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (If you would not want to be owned, then don't enslave anyone. If you don't want to be beaten, then don't beat. If you want to be loved, then love as you want to be loved. If you want to be shown mercy, then show mercy that you want to be shown to you.)

Its funny that you mention preaching when you are so set against it. But then when one teaches by his deeds (treating women fairly, owning no slaves, forgiving all, giving his life for others), then you raise issue that He did not preach it instead.

Peace,

Tammy

tec

Tec - let me start you on a wonderful google trail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

Well, I read a lot of "theories, mights, ifs, commonly, and propositions" in it.

But since I know how I feel, not a proposition of psychologists OR you, then I think I'll stick with what I know about me ;)

Honestly, Q, you can meet a person and never know them as well. You can even be friends with a person and never know them. You can even be married to a person for years and never know them. It depends very much on what they choose to show you. Or what you choose to see. Whether you meet them in person or not.

As for you, I can love you as a fellow human being who I hope has or finds peace and happiness and love. That doesn't mean I have to like you, or love you on a more personal level. I doubt I know you well enough to either like or dislike you. I can love others who I have not met in person, but who I 'know' from their words or their deeds.

Peace,

Tammy

sizemik

I also think there's a certain halfway point between belief and hypothesis that the human mind can occupy, where something is a little more than just a hypothesis, but not quite a firm conviction, or belief. . . . cedars

I agree that hypothesis must eventually become belief or die by virtue of the evidence, as it becomes available.

I see that midpoint between the two more as a vast desert. Some walk it some don't. I currently believe some lack the ability to live without belief . . . just as others lack the ability to "see" it perhaps.

But whatever can be called intelligent and rational, must be intelligible and based on rationale. Religious belief built on conjecture (it's flattering to call it hypothesis) is neither.

in·tel·li·gi·ble (n-tl-j-bl)

adj. 1. Capable of being understood: an intelligible set of directions. 2. Capable of being apprehended by the intellect alone.

ra·tion·ale (rsh-nl)

n. 1. Fundamental reasons; the basis. 2. An exposition of principles or reasons.

FlyingHighNow

The question is relative. It depends on the belief.

tec

I currently believe some lack the ability to live without belief . . . just as others lack the ability to "see" it perhaps.

I agree with this.

I do think those stances can change, for whatever reason.

Peace,

Tammy

ziddina

Okay, it's a good thing that Mickey Mouse clarified his/her words and gave us the original quote...

"If Steve was a fundy I would be concerned, but he is not. By the way, I would be equally concerned if he was a fundamentalist atheist, in common with many on this forum. ..."

Interestingly, my take on Micky's words is that he/she is deeply concerned by fundamentalist ANYTHING - be it Christian or atheist, because fundamentalism is EXTREMISM or can lead to such - and therefore is very dangerous.

While I agree with Mickey's assessment, I do tend towards the mindset that belief in a Bronze-Age, Johnny-come-lately, Middle-Eastern male volcano god is dangerous, due to the misplaced faith in what is inextricably based in a dysfunctional system - Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern male mentality...

Zid

ziddina

CantLeave - page 3...

"Fact - I see no evidence for Dragons...."

Now, wait just a doggone minute!!

FlyingHighNow

''I BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists even it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams aren't as real as the here and now?'' A quote from: ~The late John Lennon

Qcmbr

How do you become a fundamentalist atheist? Are you perhaps suggesting that there is an extreme form of skepticism that would deny reproducible evidence that verified supernatural claims?

Faith is to accept as true a metaphysical proposition without any scientifically verifiable evidence. As soon as a scientific tool, process or experiment can provide evidence it ceases to be a faith statement and becomes a matter of fact or fiction. Fundamentalism is rejecting the scientific findings and clinging rigidly to the original metaphysical proposition. A fundamentalist atheist would therefore seem to be connecting two unrelated concepts, I could passionately believe in the power of Harry Potter magic but reject all gods. I could then be a fundamentalist Potterist and an atheist.

Maybe what you mean is fundamentalist skeptic? Such a person would watch the ascension of Christ and look for strings. Id consider myself very close to a fundamentalist skeptic if only because , when it comes to metaphysical claims, history is replete with outright charlatans through to insane ill people claiming magic explanations. All have been proven wrong on investigation. History's lessons are still ignored and when AG, Lars, OBVES and any more blessed ones move on there will almost certainly be others moving in to attest to their special magic world. The fundamentalist believes despite the facts and lack of evidence, the skeptical fundamentalist is compelled to be such by the facts and the lack of evidence put forward by the magic thinkers.

Never confuse passion however, for fundamentalism. As a society we tend to favour passion when it does not challenge us ( we love passion in sport or music ) but we are inclined to dislike it when that passion has the potential to change us ( a door step preacher or a Dawkins book .) For most people it's more comfortable to focus on the daily grind and to maintain the social niceties that can get burnt in a strong exchange of views than to bother greatly with the nitty gritty of philosophy. Fair enough.

sizemik

Faith is to accept as true a metaphysical proposition without any scientifically verifiable evidence.

I have to make allowance for this . . .

The possibility of evidence becoming known to me which is not demonstrable, and thus verifiable, to others. There are some here who show an extraordinary strong conviction to their current religious belief based on something personal, which I, evidently, haven't experienced. On the one hand there are many illogical flaws, along with gaps in understanding. On the other hand, these ones have rejected the fundamentalist cult experience just like me. I trust they too, are not easily fooled again.

While my skepticism remains, I feel some allowance for what seems unlikely or impossible now, should remain. So while issues can, and should, be debated vigorously, the benefit of the doubt should remain in respect to my believing friends I feel. Without their input, the issues cannot be fully probed and I don't want my hinges going rusty. I'm still willing and ready to be convinced of many things.

If they are so much convinced . . . then that undoubtedly appears both rational and intelligent to them. Without the conjoined conviction, it remains unintelligent and irrational. What constitutes "convincing" may be highly subjective here however.

Mickey Mouse thinks religious belief is.............

Share this