What do we lose when we believe?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 20th, 2017, 4:17 am

Alias wrote:
Whitedragon wrote: Look, man, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning,
No problem. I'm not the one who made an issue of it or accused anyone of attempted decapitation by dentiture.
Whatever your, or any idle bystanders', impression may be, I am not emotionally invested.
So let me ask you outright: Do you want to be friends?
Non-combatants seems a more appropriate starting point.
... we both like Shakespeare and Star Trek. What else do you like?
whiskers on mittens, snowflakes on kittens, moonshine and wet strolls...
Name two actors who look(ed) good in the rain. Gene Kelly and Grace Kelly.
No hurry.

-- Updated October 19th, 2017, 2:57 pm to add the following --

Things one hates are often more to the point.
I nominate that god-awful Ferris wheel messing up every cinematic approach to London.

-- Updated October 19th, 2017, 4:04 pm to add the following --
Whitedragon wrote: Some religions seem cold and selfish to me
Seven pages, and you have made no specific reference to what you dislike in another religion or god.
Which ones seem selfish, in what ways? A comparison of two stories on the same theme from two different traditions would be helpful.
I like the story of a God that sacrificed something of himself
What of himself did he sacrifice, to whom, and on what rationale?
I've asked you this before: Why was any sacrifice required in the first place?
What purpose does sacrifice serve as a religious practice?
as I say I don't have all the answers.
What are some of the questions?
Some things are difficult to convey and we have to use metaphor --- we also can't always know what is metaphor and what's not.
We do have a sizeable world literature to convey pretty much everything humans have ever had to say to one another.
Why add the sacred texts?
are we rejecting God and the Bible, just because it is strange?
For my part: No. They are not strange - they're all too familiar.
They are also violent, bigoted, short-sighted, morally reprehensible, outdated, childish and outlandish.
None of which would trouble me, if the people who thump that book didn't thump it other on people's heads.
I hear you, man; and I have mentioned that the Bible records errors, not as instruction, but to learn not to repeat.

Okay, one of the things I don't like about the Bible is the fact that it says we're all born in sin. The Bible can be very dooming or at least the way people preach it. It is written, "behold the Son of God who takes away the sin of the world..." If that is so and Christs has been here, why is there still "sin," I think we should redefine some of these things. So from this you note that I do not agree with all the theology people have on the matter.

I don't know what the sacrifice of Christ means, if it is to be literally interpreted or not, perhaps it is a metaphorical reference to something else God did, that humanity only could express by comparing the value of the deed in the imagery they chose. From this we can derive that God did something, similar to us sacrificing a child - who knows, perhaps it goes even deeper than that. Like I say I don't have all the answers. What do you think?

I said before that I agree that there are vile things in the Bible, but I don't see them, again, as instruction, but rather to learn from.

One thing I like about Muslims for instance, (not the radical kind), is that they are in many respects more devoted to their faith than Christians.

I like the story/journey about the first Buddha, and how he says that the best way to make sense of this world is to be aware of your immediate surroundings and to value them in the here and now. That is a big lesson for me, something, which Christianity does not place a great emphasis on, often speaking too much of an afterlife, or at least that's the way it's preached.

What I like about Hinduism is, the fact that they really tried to integrate as many of the world religions into theirs, which is something I personally identify with.

What I like about Satanism, is the word's grammatical meaning, "opposer," you will find in the story of Balaam and the donkey, where the prophet went out to curse the people of God for money. In the original Hebrew it is written God put an angel as a "satan" in his path. I like the idea of being a satanist, in this sense, that I oppose not only atheists, but also Christians and other paths when I don't agree with them. I'm on no body's side, I merely am an explorer seeking truth and I will oppose what I don't agree with or investigate what I'm curious about.

What I like about satanists themselves is, they are their own people, their own god, they take responsibility for themselves and if they are true satanists they have a vast knowledge of many things - they study hard to obtain lore and that I respect.
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Steve3007
Posts: 4371
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Steve3007 » October 20th, 2017, 6:11 am

Whitedragon:
What I like about Satanism, is the word's grammatical meaning, "opposer," you will find in the story of Balaam and the donkey, where the prophet went out to curse the people of God for money. In the original Hebrew it is written God put an angel as a "satan" in his path.
Yes, that is interesting. I guess it means that Satan is really just playing devil's advocate. Perhaps we shouldn't demonise him for it?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 20th, 2017, 7:55 am

Steve3007 wrote:Whitedragon:
What I like about Satanism, is the word's grammatical meaning, "opposer," you will find in the story of Balaam and the donkey, where the prophet went out to curse the people of God for money. In the original Hebrew it is written God put an angel as a "satan" in his path.
Yes, that is interesting. I guess it means that Satan is really just playing devil's advocate. Perhaps we shouldn't demonise him for it?
Yes, but Satan has to grammatical meanings, 1. Opposer 2. Enemy of God.

I'm an enemy of the Shadow part of God, in other words, the God which the world misrepresent. But, of course, I am not an enemy of the God I'm still looking for and hoping to know.

-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 7:08 am to add the following --

It is not a far fetched concept that ideas predate us.

Simply take the evolution of the brain. The factors which evolved the part that thinks can be traced back as far as our first animals that began with some of those factors, which must be present in small microbes in primitive states. It is not hard to assume that we can trace it all the way back to none-biological material and even follow the inanimate elements' evolution back in history too. Or is this too much?
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Steve3007
Posts: 4371
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Steve3007 » October 20th, 2017, 8:43 am

Whitedragon:
Simply take the evolution of the brain. The factors which evolved the part that thinks can be traced back as far as our first animals that began with some of those factors, which must be present in small microbes in primitive states.
I don't know about that. I think, as with so much else in life, the ability to think evolved gradually, as a continuum. In such a way that it's not possible to point to a stage in our evolutionary history and say "that is the generation when thinking started". But that doesn't mean it's always been present.
It is not hard to assume that we can trace it all the way back to none-biological material and even follow the inanimate elements' evolution back in history too.
I have to say that I, for one, find it quite hard. At least, as I understand the word "think".
Or is this too much?
No. Not too much. We are philosophers. So as far as we're concerned the box only exists so that we can think outside of it.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 20th, 2017, 9:37 am

Steve3007 wrote:Whitedragon:
Simply take the evolution of the brain. The factors which evolved the part that thinks can be traced back as far as our first animals that began with some of those factors, which must be present in small microbes in primitive states.
I don't know about that. I think, as with so much else in life, the ability to think evolved gradually, as a continuum. In such a way that it's not possible to point to a stage in our evolutionary history and say "that is the generation when thinking started". But that doesn't mean it's always been present.
It is not hard to assume that we can trace it all the way back to none-biological material and even follow the inanimate elements' evolution back in history too.
I have to say that I, for one, find it quite hard. At least, as I understand the word "think".
Or is this too much?
No. Not too much. We are philosophers. So as far as we're concerned the box only exists so that we can think outside of it.
Well I've put my theory of though/idea evolution out there, so we can play with it or drop it - I just wish I could look into this scientifically.
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Alias
Posts: 2045
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Alias » October 20th, 2017, 9:59 pm

Whitedragon wrote: I hear you, man; and I have mentioned that the Bible records errors, not as instruction, but to learn not to repeat.
That's not what it's about, what its purveyors claim, how it's taught or what it's for.
It's meant to be the authority and supporting narrative for the canon they're trying to enforce.
Okay, one of the things I don't like about the Bible is the fact that it says we're all born in sin. The Bible can be very dooming or at least the way people preach it. It is written, "behold the Son of God who takes away the sin of the world..." If that is so and Christs has been here, why is there still "sin,"
You missed the second half of the proclamation "... from those who believe on Him and follow Him." Redemption is conditional: you have to have a strong faith; you have to renounce the original sin and its perpetrators, and refrain from doing whatever is against God's Law.
This is absolutely essential. Crucial, even: the individual christian must cut himself off from the ancestors - from his genetic and cultural roots; from his family and community - and take up a personal, responsible relation to the god. This means he's completely alone and at the mercy of the church. This makes him a single, isolate unit in the class system, in the economic structure, in the kingdom or republic: a soldier, a peasant, a worker, a parishioner that's interchangeable with any other unit - a cog. Plus, if he screw up or fails in any of those duties, he pays for the mistake. If the general, or CEO, president or bishop fail or screw up, the cogs still still pay for the mistake.
I think we should redefine some of these things. So from this you note that I do not agree with all the theology people have on the matter.
Which people? What theology? I don't know all of it, and i don't think you do, either.

TBC - I have to go find out who's been killing off the rabbit breeders of Midsomer.

-- Updated October 20th, 2017, 11:11 pm to add the following --
I don't know what the sacrifice of Christ means, if it is to be literally interpreted or not, perhaps it is a metaphorical reference to something else God did, that humanity only could express by comparing the value of the deed in the imagery they chose. From this we can derive that God did something, similar to us sacrificing a child - who knows, perhaps it goes even deeper than that.
You believe in the Christian god, because "he sacrificed something of himself" ... only, you don't know what that means... but you think we all should believe it?
Okay. Crucifixion was a standard method of capital punishment in the Roman empire. One time, when some gladiators led a slave uprising, they lined a whole highway with slowly dying rebels. To them, it wasn't sacrifice or religious or anything special.
Human sacrifice - generally as a stand-in for the annual death and rebirth of a god - is not uncommon in pagan religions. The nature-gods are, themselves, literally, the fertility, water, earth, sunshine, corn - the very stuff of life. Nature-gods give their own bodies as material and nourishment to mankind; they are reborn and die with the seasons.
Annual sacrifice is homage to that: the giving up of something precious in payment for the continued survival of the community. Not a penance; a balancing of books.

What the biblical god is supposed to have to done is not comparable to us sacrificing a child. It's comparable to what he did for Abraham: "Just kidding - here, have mine instead."
Humans put a great deal of time and effort into the the raising of their young. They take a risk in mating for life - if your life expectancy is 45, and it takes 18 years to raise a soldier and 15 to raise the soldier's bride, you're pretty much committed to the long haul. Add the high infant and maternal mortality of +/- 0 Anno Domini, there is a significant risk in getting attached to them, nurturing them to adulthood... To throw one to a lion or off a cliff was a Big Deal.
What did Jehovah do that was comparable?
Never paid child support; never missed a night's sleep to whooping cough; never showed up for the junior carpenters' fair. Splashed out on angelic choirs and a big star, but didn't provide a midwife or even a lousy motel room. Just "Slam, bam, stop crying ma'm; someday you'll be famous and have your picture on church windows, slices of toast and sweaty football players." then not a word for 32 years - not so much as a birthday card.
Like I say I don't have all the answers. What do you think?
You can't keep shoving it back on me. I've told you what i think. You have answered very few of my questions.
said before that I agree that there are vile things in the Bible, but I don't see them, again, as instruction, but rather to learn from.
Well - what have you learned? I mean specifically, what lesson from which book of the OT or NT or Paul's letters?
One thing I like about Muslims for instance, (not the radical kind), is that they are in many respects more devoted to their faith than Christians.
Which christians? These guys classroom.synonym.com/top-5-christian-c ... 80311.html ?
or them https://www.cpt.org/ or these https://cdresponse.org/ ?
Me, I respect and admire all these people. I just have no use for their faith.

So, you like something about each of those selfish religions ? But nothing about atheists? How come?

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 21st, 2017, 2:53 am

Hi, Alias,

You can pose you questions again and I will try my best to answer them.

I apologize I didn't mention atheists, but you asked about religions and atheism is not a religion. What I like about atheists most is, they need no divine motivation to live a good life, the are self-motivated in all the things they do, unlike some Christians that consciously or sub-consciously do it for reward. Of course not all Christians are like that, but quite a number of them are. What I also like more about atheists is, they don't derive all their answers from God. If a Christian can't explain something or need to talk about pain or philosophy, he doesn't try to follow logical or at least follow reason that is based on pure empathy. There is nothing that pisses me off like someone that keeps using God to explain all things, when all I want is a humane answer from a fellow human being. Atheists are also more responsible, where as Christians leave everything they can't tackle to hope, atheists won't stop making the effort, say some prayer and hope for the best.

Quite the number of Christians are weak in comparison to atheists in that respect, because they would rather that "someone else" make the effort than doing it themselves. Like I say, I've walked many paths and worn many hats - I have been atheist and I still value much of their approaches to life.

-- Updated October 21st, 2017, 2:02 am to add the following --

You say you're not acquainted with scripture and theology and you don't think I am either.

Well, I have a board knowledge and strong feeling for the word, but it would do me little good to represent myself as an expert on the Bible in a forum where I have already made know that I'm questioning some of those theologies. It is wiser to say, "I don't know," than giving myself up as someone who has all the answers. I'm here, just like you, because I'm curious and looking for new things.
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Alias
Posts: 2045
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Alias » October 21st, 2017, 12:41 pm

[quote="Whitedragon"
I apologize I didn't mention atheists, but you asked about religions and atheism is not a religion. What I like about atheists most is, they need no divine motivation to live a good life, the are self-motivated in all the things they do, unlike some Christians that consciously or sub-consciously do it for reward. [/quote]
No need to apologize, but you did set up the next question: If we're doing all right with self-motivation, how do you think we would benefit from making an effort to believe?
What I also like more about atheists is, they don't derive all their answers from God.
Consider further: We didn't all start life in godless families. Some of us have had a long, hard struggle to shed the inherited guilts and fears, to replace the facile explanations with factual information, to examine the scaffolding of our moral structures. For most self-declared atheists - and the decided agnostics - it's not a fresh new question, but one that we've already taken the time and thought to consider in some depth.
Atheists are also more responsible, where as Christians leave everything they can't tackle to hope, atheists won't stop making the effort, say some prayer and hope for the best.
You'd be surprised how many of us are gamblers, optimists and fatalists. However, you're right in that we don't have a handy scapegoat to carry, or wash, or wish away our crimes and misdemeanors, even if we haven't any sins.
I have been atheist and I still value much of their approaches to life.
Then you've answered the OPQ. That's what we have to lose.
You say you're not acquainted with scripture and theology and you don't think I am either.
I don't claim to have comprehensive knowledge. I don't deny a nodding acquaintance.

Here, again, are my most important questions:
Since you have several times emphasized the significance of the christian sacrifice,
- What is the reason for that sacrifice?
- To whom is it offered?
- Why does the recipient want/need it?

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 22nd, 2017, 5:54 am

Hey, Alias,
Your question:

Here, again, are my most important questions:
Since you have several times emphasized the significance of the christian sacrifice,
- What is the reason for that sacrifice?
- To whom is it offered?
- Why does the recipient want/need it?

According to the Bible one of the reasons for the sacrifice is sin. But I don't think we could understand it, without understanding what sin is. I think God is first and foremost practical. We don't keep the word of God for some abstract reason, but rather for practical ones. Therefore, in my spirituality, I don't call our missteps, sin. It invites confusion for the modern-day man, and because of that we miss the purpose of "sin" completely. It also creates, like you say, guilt in the one who tries to have a relationship with God.

What we forget is that whenever religion evolves, it has to contend with past notions and tackle that ... and sometimes it has no choice, but to continue some of those ideas for the sake of the psychology of the people. I don't believe people have sin as in an abstract law they break offending an abstract God. What I do believe is that, we damage our souls/we damage ourselves psychologically and sometimes physically when we do certain things. Now, imagine the leaders of that time, trying to explain this notion to their people who had little or no concept of science.

If it's true that the mind survives after death, it is logical to assume that we carry some of that psychological damage into the next life. But, again, this isn't as important as understanding the need to safeguard our mind in the here and now. Perhaps the evolution of religions aim to change the minds of people concerning spirituality/the psychology of humans; in which case atheists may have benefited more from the evolution of religion than theists.

Your second question: In light of the previous answer, the sacrifice was for all. It is not God's will to push us further into the dark, but lead us into light. If we can master our ideas on "sin," we can learn to deal better with it better. I'm not saying there was no spiritual element to his sacrifice, but I think what God wanted most for the world is for us to become masters over our minds and NOT to be held back by guilt or sin, but rather understand it better. You cannot argue that since the death and resurrection of Christ, the world started to change, even if it was running backwards for a while.

Your third question: We need the sacrifice, because, like I say, it doesn't only lead us to a better understanding on a practical level, but might also have provided for us on a mental/spiritual level that we cannot comprehend. I believe the soul and mind is virtually one thing and the spirit is that which bind it all together and possibly connects us in more dimensional levels/heaven, whatever ... like energy.

If we've learned anything from this thread, it's that neither theists nor atheists have all the answers - so I propose we take what we can from each other and aim to push the evolution of religion and science forward. Like I say, we might need each other to do that - we might hold different pieces to the same puzzle.

-- Updated October 22nd, 2017, 4:54 am to add the following --

Hey, Alias,
Your question:

Here, again, are my most important questions:
Since you have several times emphasized the significance of the christian sacrifice,
- What is the reason for that sacrifice?
- To whom is it offered?
- Why does the recipient want/need it?

According to the Bible one of the reasons for the sacrifice is sin. But I don't think we could understand it, without understanding what sin is. I think God is first and foremost practical. We don't keep the word of God for some abstract reason, but rather for practical ones. Therefore, in my spirituality, I don't call our missteps, sin. It invites confusion for the modern-day man, and because of that we miss the purpose of "sin" completely. It also creates, like you say, guilt in the one who tries to have a relationship with God.

What we forget is that whenever religion evolves, it has to contend with past notions and tackle that ... and sometimes it has no choice, but to continue some of those ideas for the sake of the psychology of the people. I don't believe people have sin as in an abstract law they break offending an abstract God. What I do believe is that, we damage our souls/we damage ourselves psychologically and sometimes physically when we do certain things. Now, imagine the leaders of that time, trying to explain this notion to their people who had little or no concept of science.

If it's true that the mind survives after death, it is logical to assume that we carry some of that psychological damage into the next life. But, again, this isn't as important as understanding the need to safeguard our mind in the here and now. Perhaps the evolution of religions aim to change the minds of people concerning spirituality/the psychology of humans; in which case atheists may have benefited more from the evolution of religion than theists.

Your second question: In light of the previous answer, the sacrifice was for all. It is not God's will to push us further into the dark, but lead us into light. If we can master our ideas on "sin," we can learn to deal better with it better. I'm not saying there was no spiritual element to his sacrifice, but I think what God wanted most for the world is for us to become masters over our minds and NOT to be held back by guilt or sin, but rather understand it better. You cannot argue that since the death and resurrection of Christ, the world started to change, even if it was running backwards for a while.

Your third question: We need the sacrifice, because, like I say, it doesn't only lead us to a better understanding on a practical level, but might also have provided for us on a mental/spiritual level that we cannot comprehend. I believe the soul and mind is virtually one thing and the spirit is that which bind it all together and possibly connects us in more dimensional levels/heaven, whatever ... like energy.

If we've learned anything from this thread, it's that neither theists nor atheists have all the answers - so I propose we take what we can from each other and aim to push the evolution of religion and science forward. Like I say, we might need each other to do that - we might hold different pieces to the same puzzle.
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Alias
Posts: 2045
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Alias » October 22nd, 2017, 9:57 am

Whitedragon wrote:
[- What is the reason for that sacrifice?]
According to the Bible one of the reasons for the sacrifice is sin.
Here are the others, according to Nehemiah.
"For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God. "
You can see, some of this ritual comes from earlier religious practice based on the seasons.
Leviticus goes into tedious and repetitious detail:
"7:37 This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings; ....4:33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. "
and King Ahaz appears to add augury
"And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the king's burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice: and the brasen altar shall be for me to enquire by."
As you also see, most of the sacrifices are livestock. These are farmers: animals are their most valuable possession. You can hear the pagan calendar in these verses.
But I don't think we could understand it, without understanding what sin is.
If we didn't know what sin is, how could we possibly avoid committing it?
It's laid out quite explicitly in the Fall story of genesis, then again in the commandments, in the laws according to Leviticus and Ezekiel, who also enumerates the duties and privileges of the priesthood...
"44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean."
including what happens to all those offerings; except for the burnt ones, it's all priests, how they get paid:
"44:29 They shall eat the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs. 44:30 And the first of all the firstfruits of all things, and every oblation of all, of every sort of your oblations, shall be the priest's: ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, that he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house."
I think God is first and foremost practical.
Jehovah and his contemporary gods were. Big Omni doesn't need to be.
Therefore, in my spirituality, I don't call our missteps, sin.
However, your spirituality is forever unavailable to me, or anyone else. There is no point in inviting others to believe what they can't know about. Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and L. Ron Hubbard laid their beliefs out in written form to share with potential converts - afaik, you have not done so.
What we forget is that whenever religion evolves, it has to contend with past notions and tackle that ...
I didn't forget.
and sometimes it has no choice,
"It" never has a choice; "it" is a tool. Popes and other prelates keep updating, rewriting, reinterpreting, reconfiguring "it" - like Microsoft does Windows; that's sometimes an improvement, but mostly inconvenience and frustration.
I don't believe people have sin as in an abstract law they break offending an abstract God. What I do believe is that, we damage our souls/we damage ourselves psychologically and sometimes physically when we do certain things. Now, imagine the leaders of that time, trying to explain this notion to their people who had little or no concept of science.
You don't need science to explain souls, and the priests of that time did an excellent hob of explaining sin. Their god wasn't abstract; he was near by, jealous and easily offended. It's the modern god - the one that's been pushed far, far up into Heaven, out into space, that is hard to comprehend.
If it's true that the mind survives after death, it is logical to assume that we carry some of that psychological damage into the next life.
I don't see how you wedge logic and afterlife into one coherent sentence.
Your second question: [To whom is it offered?]
In light of the previous answer, the sacrifice was for all.
That's a non-sequitur. Who receives the offering? Who wants it?
If we can master our ideas on "sin," we can learn to deal better with it better. I'm not saying there was no spiritual element to his sacrifice, but I think what God wanted most for the world is for us to become masters over our minds and NOT to be held back by guilt or sin,
I don't see how a bunch of roman soldiers killing an Israeli preacher will help anyone master their own mind.
You cannot argue that since the death and resurrection of Christ, the world started to change, even if it was running backwards for a while.
Yes, I can. But maybe not here.
[Why does the recipient want/need a sacrifice?] We need the sacrifice,
So, the sacrifice is from someone else to us? Okay, at least the Catholics pretend to eat their offering, as the Levites were supposed to.
because, like I say, it doesn't only lead us to a better understanding on a practical level, but might also have provided for us on a mental/spiritual level that we cannot comprehend. I believe the soul and mind is virtually one thing and the spirit is that which bind it all together and possibly connects us in more dimensional levels/heaven, whatever ... like energy.
This sounds both contradictory and confusing to me. Still can't connect it a two thousand year old execution.
Actually, Paul explained it, over and over, in his various letters to congregations.
"Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."
Essentially: if you're judged good enough, you can escape the death sentence that resulted from the original sin of Adam and Eve.

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 22nd, 2017, 11:22 am

Alias,

You quoted large passages from the OT, I thought we were discussing Christ's sacrifice. In the beginning of this year, I read through Leviticus and much of what I read was practical to me, despite it feeling like pulling teeth.

I think both atheist and theist sit secure enough not being able to be disproved, but not secure enough not to feel the need for debate. Why?

From a satanic/researcher point of view, what if Christ died, just so people would stop making animal sacrifices? There is a similar story about the Greeks, I think, or was it the Romans, where they procured the meat of their sacrifice and filled it with something else and so represented it to Zeus. Perhaps the higher learned leaders from those times realized that sacrifices of animals was a huge drain/waste on food resources and decided to end it by Christ's story. As a bonus, they received docile and obedient citizens.

Perhaps there were secret societies in those days, governing the people, just perhaps like today. Perhaps they pretended to be religious, but were atheists. What they didn't account for was the fact that they were creating an idea ... and ideas cannot be destroyed. You already know my argument about ideas, so I won't repeat it again. But just so we can be on track, where were our ideas a trillion years ago, evolutionary, biologically and cosmological and do they belong to us alone?
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Alias
Posts: 2045
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Alias » October 22nd, 2017, 1:47 pm

Whitedragon wrote:Alias,

You quoted large passages from the OT, I thought we were discussing Christ's sacrifice.
If Jesus was a real person, that's the culture he lived in; that's the religion he practiced;
that's the context in which his particular sacrifice took place, and the one in which his contemporaries would understand it.
From a satanic/researcher point of view, what if Christ died, just so people would stop making animal sacrifices?
Except they didn't. Both the Jews and the Romans kept up their same religious rituals, uninterrupted by insurrections and executions.
Jesus - again, assuming he was a real person, to whom this really happened - didn't change anything. Saul/Paul, who wasn't yet born at that time, and his converts did, 40 years later, in other occupied zones, not Israel.
There is a similar story about the Greeks, I think, or was it the Romans, where they procured the meat of their sacrifice and filled it with something else and so represented it to Zeus. Perhaps the higher learned leaders from those times realized that sacrifices of animals was a huge drain/waste on food resources and decided to end it by Christ's story.
Implausible. 1. Zeus would notice. 2. The food wasn't wasted: it was the means of paying the priests, who were not allowed to have money or property. Substituting currency as their wages, or as church tithes, is hardly a saving, and that's what happens, once the RC gets established: the top level prelates grow immensely wealthy.
3. How Christianity became officially accepted in Rome is historically documented; no need to conjecture.
Perhaps there were secret societies in those days, governing the people, just perhaps like today.
No, the rulers didn't need secrecy - they abuse their power openly, sometimes blatantly.
But the renegade sects were more or less underground, not because Rome persecuted minority religions, but because the early Christians engaged in some terrorist activity, disrupting pagan services, desecrating temples, destroying idols.
Perhaps they pretended to be religious, but were atheists.
Who? The Roman senate? Emperors? Why should they bother to pretend?
Actually, with some of the more outrageous rulers, like Caligula, the Roman pantheon had already fallen into disrepute; it's very probable that the observances were often half-hearted and more lip-service was paid than true belief. Just as is happening to Christianity now. Cheating at the top will do that to any establishment.
What they didn't account for was the fact that they were creating an idea ... and ideas cannot be destroyed.
What, like the American notion of equality and tolerance? Sure they can - usually through erosion, propaganda, corruption and neglect.
Anyway, Constantine just wanted to win a battle with the aid of a vigorous deity.
But his successors knew exactly what they were doing: substituting a popular new doctrine for an outmoded old one.
But just so we can be on track, where were our ideas a trillion years ago, evolutionary, biologically and cosmological and do they belong to us alone?
A trillion years ago, there were no ideas. Whatever ideas "we" have belong to "us" - whomever that collective pronoun may include.

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 22nd, 2017, 3:05 pm

Okay, say it's 100% spiritual, why would you think we have to believe instead of receiving proof. If you received proof, how would you handle it?
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Alias
Posts: 2045
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Alias » October 22nd, 2017, 3:21 pm

Whitedragon wrote:Okay, say it's 100% spiritual,
What is? Your hole system of supernatural beliefs, or just a god? or just a soul?
why would you think we have to believe instead of receiving proof.
Who do I think has to believe?
Do you mean: belief in the supernatural requires faith that's an emotional given, or component of your character, rather than something acquired through meditation and effort?
Yes, do think that. I do not think it can be arrived-at rationally. It might be arrived-at through a personal experience or revelation - but that's something that either happens to you or doesn't, not something you can will or wish into happening.
If you received proof, how would you handle it?
We did this one already. Have the phenomenon and myself reality-checked by the best methods available.
If i became convinced, then I would believe something I don't believe now.

User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
Posts: 918
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: What do we lose when we believe?

Post by Whitedragon » October 22nd, 2017, 3:33 pm

Alias wrote:
Whitedragon wrote:Okay, say it's 100% spiritual,
What is? Your hole system of supernatural beliefs, or just a god? or just a soul?
why would you think we have to believe instead of receiving proof.
Who do I think has to believe?
Do you mean: belief in the supernatural requires faith that's an emotional given, or component of your character, rather than something acquired through meditation and effort?
Yes, do think that. I do not think it can be arrived-at rationally. It might be arrived-at through a personal experience or revelation - but that's something that either happens to you or doesn't, not something you can will or wish into happening.
If you received proof, how would you handle it?
We did this one already. Have the phenomenon and myself reality-checked by the best methods available.
If i became convinced, then I would believe something I don't believe now.
What I mean is, if you received divine proof that God exists, alas you could confirm it for yourself too, would you accept it?
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.

Post Reply