Problems - The Root Cause

[nPeace]

The nature of reasoned enquiry, including the process of formulating hypotheses in falsifiable form to account for what has been observed.

It's scientific consensus on that last part which accounts for scientific orthodoxy at any point of time. Of course, science proceeds by empiricism and induction, so none of its conclusions is ever final. Their justification at any point is that they work in reality, give us penicillin, computers, cell phones, fast-charging batteries, Mars rovers, the LED and so on.

So according to you, it doesn't work for science either.

There have been various attempts to apply reasoned enquiry to supernatural claims, but with no positive results. One simple example is James 5:

14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.
​

To which we can reply, No, not at any rate significantly greater than spontaneous recovery.

​

Yeah, that works.
What fails to work is the atheists' understanding.
For example, reading verses 13 and 16, does help ones figure out that this sickness is not a physical sickness, as we can discern from 1 Timothy 5:23.

 

[nPeace]

A great piece.

Glad to know you think so.

 

[nPeace]

Agreed, not all control is bad.

I'm granting that submission to God's law would result is harmony, peace, etc. But I'm taking it further to determine the root of submission. In order to get to submission, a person must abandon a desire/comfort from being in control.

I can agree with that.

 

[dybmh]

I can agree with that.

So... what's the root of all problems?

 

[blü 2]

So according to you, it doesn't work for science either.

So according to you, St Francis taught the theory of evolution? The Pope accused Galileo of denying heliocentry? Your computer was designed by theologists?

As I said, science isn't validated by being absolutely correct about anything. It's validated by the fact that it works to account for reality (or rendered invalid because it doesn't).

Whereas ─ as the author of James makes clear ─ religion depends on belief in magic, and has no objective validation. If it did, we'd only have one religion.

 

[sayak83]

I though of this after a conversation, in which one person indicated that peace and harmony was not absolutely defined, but relative to each persons view.
It reminded me of what people say about truth - that truth is relative to each person, hence there is no absolute truth.
That says to me, in other words, everything is determined by what we think or decide, individually.

This worldview really reminded me of the profound truth that was written centuries ago - the root cause of every problem on the face of the earth.
It starts in Genesis.

(Genesis 3:1-5)
1 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

(Genesis 3:22)
22 Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. . . .

There are various ideas on how these verses should be understood.
I appreciate the way they are understood by Jehovah's Witnesses... not because I am one, but because their understanding is in line with the context, and makes more sense, if we take the Bible as a complete book, inspired by God, as Paul and Jesus said.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

In a nutshell, the understanding is that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was a real tree which God placed in the garden as a representation of his right as sovereign, to decide, or set the rules for his creation, as to what is good and bad.

In other words, there is only one set law or standard, on which to determine what is good, and what is bad. People do not decide that for themselves.
So for example, John Doe does not get to decide, X is good for me, and Y is bad for me, while Jane Doe is deciding X is bad for me, and Y is good for me.

We see the problem.
There is disharmony, disorder, disunity - even chaos.
This independence from God - the supreme law giver, is the root of all problems.

When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, they were really rebelling against God's sovereignty - his right to rule them, and determine good and bad for them.
They chose to decide for themselves what was good, and what was bad.
This was instigated by the original serpent - the Devil, who encouraged the rebellion.

Hence, problem after problem, and why man can never fix the problems, because they cannot agree on any set standard.
Each person decides what is good, bad, peace, harmony, etc.

It's crazy, to me, that these cannot be identified in a definite way, but is left to subjective opinion. Crazy.
However, the same book that identifies the root cause of problems, also makes it clear that chaos, disorder... can only end, when one allows the source of true righteousness to determine what is good, or bad, for them.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace--as in all the churches of the saints.
Isaiah 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; the service of righteousness will be quiet confidence forever.

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way? Jeremiah 10:23

No.
The primary problem is the desire of some religions and ideologies to claim that they have the true standard and try to enforce it on others. That is the root cause of all problems.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't agree.
What led to "the ideology that has led to so much of the awful dominance through history" was man deciding to be his own god, as I mentioned in the OP.

How do you figure? The vast majority of human beings through history have been theists. Here in the West, virtually everyone until very, very recently in history have thought their morals were from their God. Now, you might disagree with their particular rules, and of course, they'd disagree with yours. But you've all had the same basic idea for millennia. And that's been the driving force behind insisting that everyone comply with said rules.

To answer your first question, an advanced civilization, say Type 3... 4... 5.... would be far more advanced than man - eons in advance.
What knowledge they acquire would not only be built on, but become automatic and instantaneous... as in, without thought.

Before such things become automatic and unquestioned, they ought to be questioned and reasoned out, don't you think? So again, how do we decide what the rules should be?

We can think of the angels as an advanced "civilization"... greater than any type we can think of. How advanced?
(Genesis 31:11) . . .the angel of the true God said to me in the dream. . .
(Exodus 3:2) . . .Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire. . .
(Judges 6:21) . . .Jehovah’s angel then vanished from his sight. . .
(2 Kings 19:35) . . .On that very night the angel of Jehovah went out and struck down 185,000 men. . .

Morally advanced angels slaughter people en masse by the hundreds of thousands? Noted.

God is described as being far more advanced in knowledge, thought, power, wisdom... you name it.

It's not hard to understand why he is in the position to set laws and rules... for all. Is it?

The problem is, first of all, we never hear God's laws and rules from her own mouth. It always comes secondhand from dudes who claim to be her mouthpiece (e.g. the Bible you're quoting). We actually know nothing about this lady's opinions other than what they tell us about her.

And secondly, if she is advanced in all these ways, then she ought to be able to explain her reasoning behind her various rules and why they're the best ones. If she can't do that...yeah, people aren't just going to accept "because I said so." They're going to require an explanation. And a demonstration. I'm sure you can understand that reasonable request.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way?

We are from different countries, different religions. There is no 'supreme law giver'. What Jeremiah mentions may have been the law giver of Israelites (Moses?), not for all others. And there is absolutely no evidence for any law giver except humans themselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't believe.
Therefore I am assuming, you know.
So, I'm asking, if something you know, proves to be false, what would you refer to the knowing?
Obviously you thought you knew, but didn't. So if it's not a belief, what is it?

An old belief that didn't work as I liked, so I took a new one.

 

[firedragon]

We are from different countries, different religions. There is no 'supreme law giver'. What Jeremiah mentions may have been the law giver of Israelites (Moses?), not for all others. And there is absolutely no evidence for any law giver except humans themselves.

If there is no evidence, can you provide evidence to your empirical claim "there is no supreme lawgiver"?

If you don't have evidence, will you concede it's your hypocrisy to have double standards?

 

[wellwisher]

I though of this after a conversation, in which one person indicated that peace and harmony was not absolutely defined, but relative to each persons view.
It reminded me of what people say about truth - that truth is relative to each person, hence there is no absolute truth.
That says to me, in other words, everything is determined by what we think or decide, individually.

This worldview really reminded me of the profound truth that was written centuries ago - the root cause of every problem on the face of the earth.
It starts in Genesis.

(Genesis 3:1-5)
1 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

(Genesis 3:22)
22 Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. . . .

There are various ideas on how these verses should be understood.
I appreciate the way they are understood by Jehovah's Witnesses... not because I am one, but because their understanding is in line with the context, and makes more sense, if we take the Bible as a complete book, inspired by God, as Paul and Jesus said.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

In a nutshell, the understanding is that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was a real tree which God placed in the garden as a representation of his right as sovereign, to decide, or set the rules for his creation, as to what is good and bad.

In other words, there is only one set law or standard, on which to determine what is good, and what is bad. People do not decide that for themselves.
So for example, John Doe does not get to decide, X is good for me, and Y is bad for me, while Jane Doe is deciding X is bad for me, and Y is good for me.

We see the problem.
There is disharmony, disorder, disunity - even chaos.
This independence from God - the supreme law giver, is the root of all problems.

When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, they were really rebelling against God's sovereignty - his right to rule them, and determine good and bad for them.
They chose to decide for themselves what was good, and what was bad.
This was instigated by the original serpent - the Devil, who encouraged the rebellion.

Hence, problem after problem, and why man can never fix the problems, because they cannot agree on any set standard.
Each person decides what is good, bad, peace, harmony, etc.

It's crazy, to me, that these cannot be identified in a definite way, but is left to subjective opinion. Crazy.
However, the same book that identifies the root cause of problems, also makes it clear that chaos, disorder... can only end, when one allows the source of true righteousness to determine what is good, or bad, for them.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace--as in all the churches of the saints.
Isaiah 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; the service of righteousness will be quiet confidence forever.

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way? Jeremiah 10:23

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in the Garden of Eden, was connected to knowledge and law based on relative morality. Relative morality is based on opinion. True knowledge of good and evil; Divine morality, is based on long term experimental evidence; truth. We all have opinions, but not all opinions are optimized. The best of the best approaches the truth.

After Adam and Eve ate, and they first encountered God, God could tell by looking at them that they had eaten from the tree. They covered themselves with fig leaves. One of their first "opinions" was now their natural birthday suit; human body, was somehow evil and taboo. This opinion was not based on experimental evidence. It reflected them losing their natural instinct, which had been the subject of natural selection experiments for eons. They had downgraded to individual opinion without long term evidence.

Relative morality is useful for the individual; have a personal opinion. This allows one to practice creativity and data trend organizational skills. But such individual opinions are rarely useful for integrating large numbers of people, in a way that everyone benefits. It tends to be more self serving and often reflects wish fulfillment. If everyone is being self serving, death then comes into the world, since each self server thinks they have the answer for all, or else. Opinions do not require full objectivity, never mind spatial thinking; 3-D thoughts for the group. Falling short is the nature of relative morality. This is why the Political left is very high maintenance.

Most of the large overhead; taxes, in many countries is due to relative morality. The opinions that we are told to accommodate fall short and need expensive social mops to clean up the mess. These mops interfere with the natural controlled experiments based on cause and affect. They help to create an illusion any behavior is as good as any other. The mops fudges the data, by adding things not part of the natural experiments. This way nobody can learns the best ways. Nature does not have these mops, so opinions need to stand on their own. Natural selection will eliminate and narrow things down to perfection.

 

[nPeace]

So... what's the root of all problems?

Independence from the supreme law giver.

You said...
Agreed, not all control is bad.
I'm granting that submission to God's law would result is harmony, peace, etc. But I'm taking it further to determine the root of submission. In order to get to submission, a person must abandon a desire/comfort from being in control.

No worries. I understand what you are trying to get at.
It's not a wrong idea. It's actually a good thought.
I've emphasized the key points.

One could say the root cause of problems is selfish pride, but would we not have to say that what you said here cannot work, because selfish pride is in all of us, and springs up even when we don't want it to.

So, if it were the root cause of problems, abandoning it - rooting it out would not prevent problems, but the fact that we can root it out, before it creates a problem, like opposing the supreme being, means that we can prevent an action - namely rebellion - from taking place, and causing problems.

To illustrate, take Genesis 4
5 . . .Cain grew hot with anger and was dejected. 6 Then Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you so angry and dejected? 7 If you turn to doing good, will you not be restored to favor? But if you do not turn to doing good, sin is crouching at the door, and its craving is to dominate you; but will you get the mastery over it?”

You notice Cain was dejected. He got angry. Then he acted.
However, he had the opportunity to abandon a desire/comfort.
"If you turn to doing good", was God's appeal.

We see this played out daily.
A person is angry with a police officer, or the government.
He can do one of two things. Submit to authority. or oppose it.
If he recognizes... and some people do... authority, that will keep him quiet.
If however, he thinks he is "above the law"... he will retaliate, as many do.
Thereby, creating problems for himself, and others.

I'm not saying selfish pride is not a root. It is.
However, it is not what brought all the problems on the earth. The actions did.
Selfish pride is the root cause of hurtful desire.
That desire can indeed lead to problems.

Notice how the disciple James puts it.
(James 1:14, 15) 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.

Notice that the desire has to be "fertilized".
However, it is only after the wrong action is carried out, that the problem occurs.

If Adam and Eve did not choose to disobey God - be their own God, their children would not have these problems.
Since the OP is referring to the problems brought on the earth, then fittingly, it would not be improper pride at the root, but carrying out the action based on the desire to be one's own god.

I don't know if we can see eye to eye on that, but that's no problem. Pride is at the root of wanting to be a god to self, anyway.

PS.
I just thought of another illustration.
Say you really desire to fly, like jump off a mountain... and fly.
What would hold you back? Is it not your knowledge of how the laws of physics work.
Likewise, we intelligent creatures may have a desire, but knowledge of the law of the supreme creator, should hold them back from foolish action.

 

[nPeace]

So according to you, St Francis taught the theory of evolution? The Pope accused Galileo of denying heliocentry? Your computer was designed by theologists?

As I said, science isn't validated by being absolutely correct about anything. It's validated by the fact that it works to account for reality (or rendered invalid because it doesn't).

Whereas ─ as the author of James makes clear ─ religion depends on belief in magic, and has no objective validation. If it did, we'd only have one religion.

You have it all rong Oops. My keyboard malfunctions at times, and my computer doesn't always ork Oh boy. No.

True religion is validated by the fact that it works Ah. It works to account for reality - the true God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have it all rong Oops. My keyboard malfunctions at times, and my computer doesn't always ork Oh boy. No.

True religion is validated by the fact that it works Ah. It works to account for reality - the true God.

Yet, I have a different true God. The Wrong One as the mother of all.

 

[We Never Know]

I though of this after a conversation, in which one person indicated that peace and harmony was not absolutely defined, but relative to each persons view.
It reminded me of what people say about truth - that truth is relative to each person, hence there is no absolute truth.
That says to me, in other words, everything is determined by what we think or decide, individually.

This worldview really reminded me of the profound truth that was written centuries ago - the root cause of every problem on the face of the earth.
It starts in Genesis.

(Genesis 3:1-5)
1 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

(Genesis 3:22)
22 Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. . . .

There are various ideas on how these verses should be understood.
I appreciate the way they are understood by Jehovah's Witnesses... not because I am one, but because their understanding is in line with the context, and makes more sense, if we take the Bible as a complete book, inspired by God, as Paul and Jesus said.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

In a nutshell, the understanding is that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was a real tree which God placed in the garden as a representation of his right as sovereign, to decide, or set the rules for his creation, as to what is good and bad.

In other words, there is only one set law or standard, on which to determine what is good, and what is bad. People do not decide that for themselves.
So for example, John Doe does not get to decide, X is good for me, and Y is bad for me, while Jane Doe is deciding X is bad for me, and Y is good for me.

We see the problem.
There is disharmony, disorder, disunity - even chaos.
This independence from God - the supreme law giver, is the root of all problems.

When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, they were really rebelling against God's sovereignty - his right to rule them, and determine good and bad for them.
They chose to decide for themselves what was good, and what was bad.
This was instigated by the original serpent - the Devil, who encouraged the rebellion.

Hence, problem after problem, and why man can never fix the problems, because they cannot agree on any set standard.
Each person decides what is good, bad, peace, harmony, etc.

It's crazy, to me, that these cannot be identified in a definite way, but is left to subjective opinion. Crazy.
However, the same book that identifies the root cause of problems, also makes it clear that chaos, disorder... can only end, when one allows the source of true righteousness to determine what is good, or bad, for them.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace--as in all the churches of the saints.
Isaiah 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; the service of righteousness will be quiet confidence forever.

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way? Jeremiah 10:23

Too many god fearing christians abuse/molest kids.
IMO either they really don't believe in god
and/or use their believe in god as cover for their pervertism.

So I guess one can look at it as there are too many fake hypocritical christian in the world today as part of the problem. .

 

[Alien826]

Not afterlife.
Do you know what's happening two hundred trillion miles away at this moment?
You don't, right.

Er, no.

What if you could know... if what were happening would or could have a present and future impact on our life?
I'm sure the science guys would all like to know all the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

Well, whether we know it, or not, there is more happening outside of our scope.
This happened at a point in time in our present day, but is history now.
Daniel 7:9-10

Ah, prophesy.

Only those who value the truth recognizes this though. The Bible isn't fiction, as some claim. It tells us the truth.
Whether we believe it or not, is a matter for us.
That changes nothing.

Your belief is true and all beliefs that differ are false. You know, I really can't argue with that. To me that's just an unsupported assertion.

Well if something is true, it doesn't really matter what I pick, does it?

For example, if I held out to a crowd - yourself included, one hundred $100.00 bills, and in there is only one legit bill... all the rest are counterfeit. ...but I picked the one I know is genuine... first.
It doesn't really matter who cries moo, that all are the same, does it?
One is genuine. If I have it, a thousand moos won't change that , will it.
While there are 99 people holding a counterfeit, there is only one holding the real thing.

So I don't find the argument you used - which I hear so very often - very useful.
It would make more sense to say no religion is good. Fullstop, and forget about who uses scripture or not.

"Moos"?

Back to the original point, I agreed that rule by an all-knowing (and benevolent!) God would be great. The trouble is that before we embark on such a major change to how the world is run (even if we could do it) we would need to be very very certain that (a) such a being exists and (b) we really know the rules that this being sets out. I suggested that the vast panoply of scriptures that differ wildly suggests that that task approaches impossibility. With respect, your assertion that your interpretation of the Bible is that answer needs some work.

Incidentally, I don't agree that we might as well ignore all scripture. Given that God does exist (and I don't, but let's pretend) there is another view, that all scriptures may be accurate to some extent. On balance though, I doubt there is that one genuine $100 bill. Consider, why would God give only one section of the population the absolute truth and either lie to, or ignore everyone else?

Scientists have disagreements, and they have different ideas. You don't hear anyone making the argument that some scientists pick one interpretation and claim that is the Truth and all the others are false...

Oh wait. We do hear that.

Not really. They say one interpretation is better than others based on available data and testing. They don't just claim stuff.

The problem skeptics are having though, is that they aren't sure, That's not a problem for those who are.
All the prophets were sure. Jesus was sure. The apostles were sure. All of Jesus disciples were, and are sure... 100%.

The truth is not determined by democratic vote. Everyone in the world could believe that something false is true. Doesn't make it so.

It's comparable to they all holding the genuine bills, while counterfeits fly all around them. Perhaps you remember, that was the case? It's in the Bible.

(Matthew 7:15) Be on the watch for the false prophets . . .

(Matthew 24:11) Many false prophets will arise and mislead many. . .

(Matthew 24:24) For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.

(2 Corinthians 11:13) For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

Just as individuals can identify real money, from counterfeit, individuals are obligated to identify true religion, from false.
The marks are given.
Failing to identify those marks is not the fault of true religion.
Actually, true religion not only demonstrate the mark. They advocate them. People have no excuse.

You can't use the Bible to prove itself. I'm sure the Book of Mormon claims to be true. Do you believe that? (Sorry LDS people, just an example).

Admit what, exactly?
Well, of course my statement doesn't render his statement unreasonable... because it was only to help him see the need to stop throwing stones, when you live in a glass house.

Besides, I do not consider all statements said in ignorance to be unreasonable. They are sometimes sincere, and can be meaningful.

I believe he was sincere, though wrong.
I don't think he fully thought it through, and so I turned the table, with the hope he realizes it.
If he persists with the argument, then I would consider him being unreasonable.

When anyone presents a solution to all of humanity's problem, they don't come across as kind of full of themselves... regardless of who they are.
Experts do this all the time, by using evidence and data. That's what I did.

However, I understand he was just looking for the first opportunity to lash out at me.
A few atheists on here would like to get their hands around my throat.

Does two wrongs make a right?
Sometimes.

Now, I hope you don't go telling me I am wrong, because we will have to get into that debate about who gets to decide what is good or bad.

I can think of some examples where God does not condemn this... for the purpose of helping the arrogant.

1. Ezekiel 3:7-9 Sometimes, being as stubborn as the stubborn is necessary. See Isaiah 50:7
2. 2 Corinthians 11:16-20 Sometimes, boasting - though not a good thing - may be necessary. See 2 Corinthians 10:8

So, yes, meeting arrogance with arrogance is necessary... at times.
The trick is in knowing when to use it... I don't admit to getting it right 100%.

Choose your own debating style, I guess.

Perhaps you could give an example of two wrongs making a right though. I can't think of one. In case we are up against definitions, I mean something like "You did X, that's bad". "Well you did Y, that's bad too". That's really not a defense if X really is bad.

I see evidence for God. If God is, that is an absolute truth... which none of us can change.
I therefore cannot agree with your believe that it is not the absolute truth that there is a God.

I think it sounds confusing too... reading it over.
The reason is probably punctuation... or lack of it. , and because I copied and pasted his quote, and don't double check how it sounded. Oops.

I therefore cannot agree with your believe belief, that it is not the absolute truth that there is a God.
Is that okay now?

You just changed one word ... but let's drop it, it isn't important.

 

[nPeace]

Too many god fearing christians abuse/molest kids.
IMO either they really don't believe in god
and/or use their believe in god as cover for their pervertism.

So I guess one can look at it as there are too many fake hypocritical christian in the world today as part of the problem. .

That's an effect. Not a cause.
True, it causes others problems, but molestation did not cause all the problems.
Or were you discussing another matter?

 

[Alien826]

True religion is validated by the fact that it works Ah. It works to account for reality - the true God.

Works to do what though? Seriously, I'm looking for some examples.

And wouldn't it be necessary to show that this supposedly "true" religion "works" in every way? After all, one example might be coincidence. (Example, my religion tells me that if I eat green tomatoes a wart I have will go away. I have a wart and I eat green tomatoes. It goes away. The problem is that warts go away on their own eventually.)

Trivial example, yes, but I'm trying to point out how difficult "it works" is to prove a religious statement or practice. Maybe this would be closer. I have a problem with alcoholism (I don't really). I pray for help, and find that I can now resist the urge to drink. Sounds convincing, but there are other explanations. Maybe my belief in the power of prayer is the true explanation. Maybe something else happened that I am overlooking. The human mind is a mysterious thing.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

[nPeace]

No.
The primary problem is the desire of some religions and ideologies to claim that they have the true standard and try to enforce it on others. That is the root cause of all problems.

I guess you believe there were some religions before then... amd you also know when those religions started, and what they believed. Are you that old?
Or do you have that writen in some hidden history book, that you alone have access to?

 

[nPeace]

How do you figure? The vast majority of human beings through history have been theists. Here in the West, virtually everyone until very, very recently in history have thought their morals were from their God. Now, you might disagree with their particular rules, and of course, they'd disagree with yours. But you've all had the same basic idea for millennia. And that's been the driving force behind insisting that everyone comply with said rules.
Forgive me, but I have a hard time figuring out why people lump all religion into one.

Can you help me understand why some people do not realize there is good and bad in everything... including religion, and why they seem to think that there is no good religion... different to the others?

Before such things become automatic and unquestioned, they ought to be questioned and reasoned out, don't you think? So again, how do we decide what the rules should be?

Well, if I thought like that when my dad told me not to run across the road, I probably wouldn't be alive today.
There is no need to question a dad that proves trustworthy... or do you disagree?

Morally advanced angels slaughter people en masse by the hundreds of thousands? Noted.

Yeah. People who were about to slaughter millions in a city.
I guess you don't consider those US soldiers moral... or Ukrainian... or whichever army of whichever country you live in?

The problem is, first of all, we never hear God's laws and rules from her own mouth. It always comes secondhand from dudes who claim to be her mouthpiece (e.g. the Bible you're quoting). We actually know nothing about this lady's opinions other than what they tell us about her.

Why is that a problem, may I ask?
Some people never heard words from the mouth of individuals they communicated with, but the letters they read, did a lot for them.
I never heard words from your mouth. How do I know you even exist?
Worst yet, I don't even know if what's showing up here on my screen should be taken seriously.
Should I be responding?
Wait a minute... I might be talking to myself. Looking around

And secondly, if she is advanced in all these ways, then she ought to be able to explain her reasoning behind her various rules and why they're the best ones. If she can't do that...yeah, people aren't just going to accept "because I said so." They're going to require an explanation. And a demonstration. I'm sure you can understand that reasonable request.

Fair enough.
First of all, they have, explained that they are not a "she", "lady", "female", or any of the other things skeptics choose to use in identifying 'him'.

Second of all, God has explained his rules, and why they are good... to all who are willing to listen.
He does not remove fingers from ears, or shout that the willful death hear.

So, yes, God both explained, and demonstrated, and people get it... millions have.... and millions more are.... and millions more will.
Millions won't, but that's not because they can't. They don't want to.