Personal experience as a basis for god belief

[Myles]

I'm not recommending anything.




And I would say that thinking this way is the surest way to waste a li

I'm glad you would not recommend anything.That chimes with my view that we must stand on our own feet and not rely on others for answers

As to wasting life, we are on a different wavelength. I live what I regard as a great life surrounded as I am by a loving family. I am currently putting the touches to a piece of music which will be performed by my grandauughter's senior school orchestra. It's not great music but at least I am creating something. On a more prosaic note , I grow all our own vegetables and manage to find time for reading.

Life is for living and that is what Iam doing. If I have chosen the wrong path. whatever that might be, I am not aware of having done so. I am as contented as anyone else I know. Does that make any sense to you ?

 

[Myles]

I will respond to your interpretation, just a bit short on time right now


Jan.

Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you

 

[greenberg]

Life is for living and that is what Iam doing. If I have chosen the wrong path. whatever that might be, I am not aware of having done so. I am as contented as anyone else I know. Does that make any sense to you ?

Look, but this is what the theists are doing too - just that they have decided on a different path than you. And yet you are criticizing them.

 

[Myles]

Look, but this is what the theists are doing too - just that they have decided on a different path than you. And yet you are criticizing them.

That's a fair comment. I could write pages about the reasons for my antagonism to theism but I will just mention a few of them.

I am opposed to instiutionalized religion becaus it indoctrinates children at an age when the tend to believe what any adult tells them. No encouragement is given to them to think for themselves or to question "received wisdom"

In my own country, Ireland, I witnessed years of sectarian killings. In the Repuiblic, where I grew up, I was told that Roman Catholicism was the only true religion. Everyone else was bound for eternal damnation. North of the border, which is mainly Protestant., my contemporaries were being taught that the Pope was the anti-Christ.

Anyone who studies history cannot but be aware of the dreadful things done in the name of religion. The Inquisition, the so-called wars of religion, the crusades and, not least , the butchering of innocent Incas . Much of what went on was politically motivated, as you probably know.

I have been told time and again, the the people who did these dreadful things were mot true Christians. That may be so, but it leaves me uncertain as to what it means to be a true Christian. I don't doubt there are decent people of all persuasions but it can be difficult to sort the sheep from the goats. When push comes to shove, most Christians will support their churches right or wrong because to do otherwise would mean losing their prop

Daily we read of innocent people in the Middle East being blown to pieces by suicide bombers who have been brainwashed into believing that they are not murderers but martyrs who are promised a priveliged place in heaven.

In the US bigots are not in short supply. Self-appointed pastors set up their own churches, preach their own brand of Christianity and pocket the profits.
Do you remember when Oral Roberts confined himself to his prayer tower, telling his flock that God had told him to collect six million dollars in pledges. The alternative was that he would die in his prayer tower. Blackmail ? Of course.Have you seen what Phelps and his family get up to ? His poor ,brainwashed kids will produce another generation of bigots.

I will cite no more examples. I'm sure you could write your own list

So, it comes down to this. If only children were taught to think for themselves instead of being indoctrinated, much evil would be avoided because the Priests, Pastors and Mullahs, inter alia, would be closely questioned and seen in their true colours.

That is why I find it difficult to avoid confronting anyone who appears to be proselytizing.

 

[greenberg]

If only children were taught to think for themselves instead of being indoctrinated

What do you suggest - how is a child to be taught to "think for themselves"?

 

[Myles]

What do you suggest - how is a child to be taught to "think for themselves

By being exposed to ideas commensurate to their age and being encouraged to see that there are often different ways of looking at things.It is also necessary to avoid spoonfeeding them ready-made answers in response to some of the questions children commonly ask.

It is perfectly possible , in answer to a child's question ,to say that some people believe this, others believe something else . The problem is not with the children; it is with parents. Ask a person why he is a member of church X and 99% of the time it will be because his parents are.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Quick note; to get different colours, highlight the segment then press the big blue 'A'.
Do the same to quote prefered segments and click on the icon which looks like a written document next to the postcard looking thingy.
To get 'quote by so and so', you put = whatever name you choose after the quote at the begining of the segment, within the brackets.

Now then.

Afterthought. If you do decide to post again , please remember I still awaiting your interpretation of the pssage I cited from Judges. I gave you my interpretation. Please give me yours. Are you , perhaps, a moral coward ?

An old atheist trick. You take something which is superficially, morally reprehensible from the bible, then ask a theist to justify the statement in the context of modern secular life. If the theist justifies the statement then he is classed as a pervert, if he denounces it, or chooses not to rise to the challenge, then his belief is a joke.
So predictable.
All this is done under the atheist understanding that you cannot use the same scripture to come to any understanding as to why some actions take place.
Its all atheist, atheist, atheist, isn't it.
But seeing as you are using "god" as YOU see him to interpret the segments, then so shall i.

How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself".

But it's even worse than that. I'ts about a man who handed his daughter to a mob inviting them to do what they would with her. I find that revolting. The concubine also deserved to be treated with respect.

If you believe the above is not a description of gang rape and murder then there is nothing anyone can say to you. You are beyond reason. People like you thrive on taking advantage of others, even more ignorant than yourselves.

You say that by modern standards those verses describe "gang-rape", so please provide any evidence from them,
that these men gang-raped the women. It is as simple as that.
Emotional outbursts do not count as evidence.

I have already given my interpretation albeit very short. However there is not much more to add to that, as that is the core.
The women were of less value than the man, otherwise he wouldn't made that choice. To understand why they were of less value, you must look further than your own personal experiences, as you would do to understanding anything that is beyond your scope.
If you are not able to do that, or do not want to do that, then there is no point in this discussion.

If god wants to demonstrate the dominion of men in this way, I want none of it.

The MAN was in a situation, He made a choice.
Why do YOU think he made that choice?

The bottom line is I do not believe a loving god would countenance such behaviour, so either the Bible is wrong or god is a monster.

You're not trying to look at it from "god'" perspective.
In genesis there is an example of what "life" is and what the "body" is.
He ("god") formed man out of the dust then breathed life into the nostril, and man became a 'living' soul. So from "gods" perspective the life-force (soul) never dies. This must be understood if you are serious.
You and I can never understand the concept of "god'" love, by equating it with what we understand to be love, our positions a different.

How do you know, with understanding that the spirit never dies, that that action wasn't the best action to take in order to stop the force of real evil spreading throughout the world (at that time), giving NO soul a chance of salvation.

If you choose to believe such stuff is the revealed word of god, I just cannot understand your mentality. You have clearly been brainwashed.

You've just taken that statement out the scripture, in an attemp to paint a very narrow picture of "god", and concluded then "god" or God is monster.
You judge my mentality, by your own indirectly believing that your mentality is the benchmark. How arrogant.
If you can think for yourself, then step outside of the mind-numbing standard retorts, and discuss the "god" which is DESCRIBED in the scripture, not only the bible. The best scripture IMO to understand the nature of God is the Bhagavad Gita, as it is God who speaks, and describes himself.

If you decide to maintain your lazy position of using standard retorts, then please REALLY make this the last word.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,

Quick note; to get different colours, highlight the segment then press the big blue 'A'.
Do the same to quote prefered segments and click on the icon which looks like a written document next to the postcard looking thingy.
To get 'quote by so and so', you put = whatever name you choose after the quote at the begining of the segment, within the brackets.

Now then.



An old atheist trick. You take something which is superficially, morally reprehensible from the bible, then ask a theist to justify the statement in the context of modern secular life. If the theist justifies the statement then he is classed as a pervert, if he denounces it, or chooses not to rise to the challenge, then his belief is a joke.
So predictable.
All this is done under the atheist understanding that you cannot use the same scripture to come to any understanding as to why some actions take place.
Its all atheist, atheist, atheist, isn't it.
But seeing as you are using "god" as YOU see him to interpret the segments, then so shall i.






You say that by modern standards those verses describe "gang-rape", so please provide any evidence from them,
that these men gang-raped the women. It is as simple as that.
Emotional outbursts do not count as evidence.

I have already given my interpretation albeit very short. However there is not much more to add to that, as that is the core.
The women were of less value than the man, otherwise he wouldn't made that choice. To understand why they were of less value, you must look further than your own personal experiences, as you would do to understanding anything that is beyond your scope.
If you are not able to do that, or do not want to do that, then there is no point in this discussion.



The MAN was in a situation, He made a choice.
Why do YOU think he made that choice?



You're not trying to look at it from "god'" perspective.
In genesis there is an example of what "life" is and what the "body" is.
He ("god") formed man out of the dust then breathed life into the nostril, and man became a 'living' soul. So from "gods" perspective the life-force (soul) never dies. This must be understood if you are serious.
You and I can never understand the concept of "god'" love, by equating it with what we understand to be love, our positions a different.

How do you know, with understanding that the spirit never dies, that that action wasn't the best action to take in order to stop the force of real evil spreading throughout the world (at that time), giving NO soul a chance of salvation.



You've just taken that statement out the scripture, in an attemp to paint a very narrow picture of "god", and concluded then "god" or God is monster.
You judge my mentality, by your own indirectly believing that your mentality is the benchmark. How arrogant.
If you can think for yourself, then step outside of the mind-numbing standard retorts, and discuss the "god" which is DESCRIBED in the scripture, not only the bible. The best scripture IMO to understand the nature of God is the Bhagavad Gita, as it is God who speaks, and describes himself.

If you decide to maintain your lazy position of using standard retorts, then please REALLY make this the last word.

Jan.

I'm not interested in tricks, atheists or otherwise. I understand your message to mean that if I do not accept your view, then I am wrong.

Wel, surprise, surprise I do not believe I am wrong in my interpretation of Judges. You have given me no reason to believe otherwise because you have not explained in what way my interpretation is wrong. You have avoided the issue by talking about Genesis; a typical Christian trick to which I have been exposed on many occasions.

So, for the sake of argument, let's accept Genesis as the literal truth. How does that invalidate my interpretation of Judges. Wanting to " know" a man, do not do such a "vile " thing unto him, her is his concubine, do unto her ....,
they "abused " her all night, she is found dead on the threshold , following which she is cut into 12 pieces. What have I misunderstood ? If you cannot explain what you believe it means, I am entitled to believe that you don't know or don't want to know. You are avoiding the issue.

It all seems to boil down to : It's in scripture, so it must be true. God can do what he pleases and it is his will that men have dominion over women. Rape them, cut them up, feel free to show them who is boss ! Even if you were right that abuse is not rape in the context of Judges, something you have yet to show, is it ok for a gang of men to abuse a woman all night, whatever form the abuse takes ?
I rest my case


I don't doubt your sincerity but I have grounds to believe that you cannot think for yourself. So we come back to , tell me what you think it means. Put up or shut up

 

[nova900]

But seeing as you are using "god" as YOU see him to interpret the segments, then so shall i.

But we all interpret God differently from each other.Even people who follow the same faith will perceive God somewhat differently from each other.
If you literally interpret the nature of God in the bible then you are simply viweing God thru the eyes of the authors with all their cultural and other biases factored in.

You and I can never understand the concept of "god'" love, by equating it with what we understand to be love, our positions a different.

.

I believe we can by understanding the unconditional love often demonstrated by Jesus. Humans are capable of such. Being selfless and showing unconditional love are far more important to God than so much of the man created dogmatic nonsense present in so many faiths.
This spiritual concept is present in many religions but i think too many focus on literal portrayals of God or specific idealogies that "only" lead to God.

 

[greenberg]

By being exposed to ideas commensurate to their age

"Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

I'm not interested in tricks, atheists or otherwise. I understand your message to mean that if I do not accept your view, then I am wrong.

As I am the author of my posts, I know for a fact (albeit personal) that your understanding is at fault, leading to a faulty conclusion.
Judging from your sentiments of "god", and scripture, I have no reason to believe your understanding of them are any different.
If you are going to use the bible to degrade the concept of "god" then don't be surprised if the bible is used expose your ignorance.

Wel, surprise, surprise I do not believe I am wrong in my interpretation of Judges.

I didn't say you WAS wrong, I asked you to provide evidence which would put the act in a category of modern-day rapists and murderers. I wanted to see how you came to that conclusion based on the scripture.

You have avoided the issue by talking about Genesis; a typical Christian trick to which I have been exposed on many occasions.

Upon what evidence do regard me as "christian"?
What is wrong with countering your understanding of "god" from the bible, with an extract from the same said bible?

So, for the sake of argument, let's accept Genesis as the literal truth.

I wasn't arguing from the point that genesis is literal truth.
Have you not read my responses to you?

How does that invalidate my interpretation of Judges. Wanting to " know" a man, do not do such a "vile " thing unto him, her is his concubine, do unto her ....,
they "abused " her all night, she is found dead on the threshold , following which she is cut into 12 pieces.

The word used for "know" is 'yada' which does not only mean wanting to know someone in the carnal sense. A civilised court would not deem someone guilty on the basis of a word/terminology, that has many meanings.
"Abuse" is not a pre-requisite for rape, or any sexual activity, and what was considered "abuse" thousands of years ago, well be accepted common practice by today standards.
She was found dead, that is what it says, not that she was murdered.
The cutting into 12 peices came after the event.

It all seems to boil down to : It's in scripture, so it must be true.

We are discussing scripture, try and stay focused. You have taken a segment and used that segment to justify your position, and to degrade my position.

God can do what he pleases and it is his will that men have dominion over women.

Men have dominian because they are stronger, that is the natural order.

Rape them, cut them up, feel free to show them who is boss !

There are men like that, I agree, but that's not what it means to have dominian, not for those of sober human intelligence anyway.

Even if you were right that abuse is not rape in the context of Judges, something you have yet to show, is it ok for a gang of men to abuse a woman all night, whatever form the abuse takes ?
I rest my case

What case? Get real man.
Personally I don't believe it is okay to abuse people, but there are those who get a kick out of it.
How exactly have you implicated "god" in the acts of these men?

I don't doubt your sincerity but I have grounds to believe that you cannot think for yourself. So we come back to , tell me what you think it means. Put up or shut up

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that you are wrong, i wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that they were gang-rapists and murderers (by todays standard), on the strength of judges. Whether they did or didn't do it, is besides the point.

Jan.

not sure if you're aware, but to reply to my posts using the tools i mentioned, you first need to click quote in the left hand corner of this message. ignore this if you know this already.

 

[Myles]

"Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

Oh dear, have you no idea what I'm talking about.

We do not mention mathematics when we are teaching young children to do "sums". We have a syllabus. The same goes for other subjects. We do not ask them to accept things on faith. A good teacher or parent can offer an inquisitive child evidence. I can see no problem.

to cut to the chase and talk about what I imagine is of most to you :

"Who made the world? " Well, some people say itwas made by God and show you what is said about it in a holy book called the Bible. But , if we lived in India, a far away country, people would show us a different holy book. You see, there are lots of holy books so it is diofficult to know which one is the right one. Some people will tell you there is no real difference. They will say that all the holy books are talking about the same god in different ways.

But you will find that difficult to understand because people are always arguing over what each of the holy books means That is why we have different religions.

There are other people who do not believe any of the holy books. They say they are just like the fairy tales I tell you.

So I do not know the answer to your question. It's a very difficult question to answer. Be patient and wait till you are old enough to read holy books for yourself Then when you read and talk to other people about their holy books, you may find the answer to the difficult question. I do'nt know the answer but that doesn't mean there isn't one. One day you will find out for yourself what you think the answer is.

 

[Myles]

I believe we can by understanding the unconditional love often demonstrated by Jesus. Humans are capable of such. Being selfless and showing unconditional love are far more important to God than so much of the man created dogmatic nonsense present in so many faiths.
This spiritual concept is present in many religions but i think too many focus on literal portrayals of God or specific idealogies that "only" lead to God

That is a much better answer than any I have been given in my lifetime. Maybe, just maybe. if I had come under your influence when I was a child , I would have a different view ofthings. The world would be a far better place if more people had your attitude. The only point on which I see us disagreeing is that I am only aware of human love and kindness.

 

[Jan Ardena]

nova900,

But we all interpret God differently from each other.Even people who follow the same faith will perceive God somewhat differently from each other.

This is correct, but the fact is God is described in all scriptures as the Supreme Cause of causes, the ultimate creator and person. This is also accepted by the sincere follows of subsequent religions that base their understanding on scripture.

If you literally interpret the nature of God in the bible then you are simply viweing God thru the eyes of the authors with all their cultural and other biases factored in.

If the nature of God is that he is pure spirit, the creator of the material manifestation, and he is described as such in all scriptures, then it stands to reason that the authors, although miles and times apart, had the same understanding.

I believe we can by understanding the unconditional love often demonstrated by Jesus.

Jesus could understand that he was going to be murdered because of what he knew, but still thought it necessary to impart knowledge to the ignorant.
Can we really understand that kind of love?

Humans are capable of such. Being selfless and showing unconditional love are far more important to God than so much of the man created dogmatic nonsense present in so many faiths.

I totally agree.

This spiritual concept is present in many religions but i think too many focus on literal portrayals of God or specific idealogies that "only" lead to God.

What do you mean by "spiritual concept"?

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



As I am the author of my posts, I know for a fact (albeit personal) that your understanding is at fault, leading to a faulty conclusion.
Judging from your sentiments of "god", and scripture, I have no reason to believe your understanding of them are any different.
If you are going to use the bible to degrade the concept of "god" then don't be surprised if the bible is used expose your ignorance.



I didn't say you WAS wrong, I asked you to provide evidence which would put the act in a category of modern-day rapists and murderers. I wanted to see how you came to that conclusion based on the scripture.



Upon what evidence do regard me as "christian"?
What is wrong with countering your understanding of "god" from the bible, with an extract from the same said bible?



I wasn't arguing from the point that genesis is literal truth.
Have you not read my responses to you?


what was considered "abuse" thousands of years ago, well be accepted common practice by today standards.

Or it may equally well considered worse by today's standards. Have you thought about that ?



She was found dead, that is what it says, not that she was murdered.

Dead after a night of abuse. It seems to me those men had something to do with her death. It may have been pure coincidence. Believe what seemeth right unto you.


We are discussing scripture, try and stay focused. You have taken a segment and used that segment to justify your position, and to degrade my position.

I don't need to degrade your position. You are making a fine job of it all by yourself.


Men have dominian because they are stronger, that is the natural order

You'll be telling me soon that in those far-off days dominion really meant equality. As a male of the species I view my marriage as a partnership of equals

What case? Get real man.

Get real like you ? No thanks


How exactly have you implicated "god" in the acts of these men?

Because the Bible is said to be the revealed word of god, ergo it must be true. ergo god sanctioned the abuse or he would have said a bit in Judges to condemn it

Do you ever THINK about what you believe?You were born with the ability to REASON. Why not give it a try. As you have mentioned the natural order of things, you might benefit from reading about evolutionary theory.You will not be asked to take anything on trust. You will be presented with an account which is REASONABLE

 

[nova900]

What do you mean by "spiritual concept"?
.

What I mean are the commanalities that many religions share about God/the afterlife without referring to specific personality traits being assigned to God..example: male or female spirit,angry,jealous,wrath-filled,or.... certain passages referring to words spoken directly by God.
The common bond that binds them. Those are the things I consider spiritual.
God being a great eternal spirit, God is love,selflessnish is a quality to strive for,etc.
As demonstrated by Jesus,Krishna ,Aset (Isis) and others.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Do you ever THINK about what you believe?

You are jumpier than a frog on speed, with all these subject changes. Of course I think about what I believe. Why wouldn't I?

You were born with the ability to REASON. Why not give it a try.

Wait a minute there.
What's all this about?
Why do you think I do not use the ability of reason?

As you have mentioned the natural order of things, you might benefit from reading about evolutionary theory.You will not be asked to take anything on trust. You will be presented with an account which is REASONABLE

Uhh!
I have read up on the "evolutionary theory", and have benefited as a result, and yes it is REASONABLE. But what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

Jan.

 

[greenberg]

Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

Oh dear, have you no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm asking you to be exact.

We do not mention mathematics when we are teaching young children to do "sums". We have a syllabus. The same goes for other subjects.

And who compiles that syllabus? By what standards is that syllabus compiled?

to cut to the chase and talk about what I imagine is of most to you :

You imagine, yes, but you have no idea what is of most importance to me.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



Of course I think about what I believe. Why wouldn't I?

I see little evidence that you do. You take a lopsided view of what the word "abuse " means. You put your own spin on it to trry and bolster your argument. By today's standards the abuse referred to in Judges might be considerd acceptable or unacceptable. You simply chose what suited your argument. That is scarcely the the sign of a thinking man; rather it betokens someone who has scant regard for the truth. On what ground did you choose one view over another ?
Further , is abuse of any kind ever acceptable ? I don't think so .




Why do you think I do not use the ability of reason?

See above for evidence, Reasoning means looking at things from all sides and trying to make a decision with respect for the available facts. You have not done so.



I have read up on the "evolutionary theory", and have benefited as a result, and yes it is REASONABLE. But what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

It might just show that your mind is more open than than your posts suggest

Jan.

Briefly, what is the biggest benefit you feel you have derived from reading about evolutionary theory. What books have you read ? And would you like to discuss with me the merits/ demerits of the theory ?

Ps. Don't forget you still have not told me what your understanding of Judges is. Can you please re-tell the story in your own words; this will allow us to compare my version with yours, and we can take the debate from there. Is that so difficult for you to do ? Never mind frogs on speed, just get on and tell the story , as you would to someone who had not read the passage I cited.

 

[Myles]

I'm asking you to be exact.




And who compiles that syllabus? By what standards is that syllabus compiled?

You are simply tedious. If you have had any schooling , you would not ask such a stupid question.

YOU ARE SIMPLY SCRAPING THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL.

Shall I make life simple for you and explain why 2 + 2 = 4. I don't think so.
It might be 5 if god so decrees because he didn't define the terms. Please go away.