Problems - The Root Cause

[nPeace]

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.

We disagree, but that's okay. We do have evidence. Not everyone considers that evidence in the same light.
Some lights are real dim.

Easy to miss a lot.

 

[nPeace]

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

I'm confused. I thought you said, you don't believe... How is it a belief?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm confused. I thought you said, you don't believe... How is it a belief?

I use too simple words sometimes when I write. If you want it in the correct words. I don't have beliefs in the end as if they are true. Truth I leave to God, if She exists. I have faith in God, but I don't know if She exists or not. I don't even believe that it is true that She exists. I only have faith.

No knowledge, no truth, no testimony or what not. I have only blind faith in Her, if She exists.
I am a strong general skeptic after all, so I follow how I understand the world as a skeptic.

 

[Alien826]

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'.

I can't speak for this particular poster, but many use "she" to point out that a spiritual being would not have a gender, and that to continue to refer to God as "he" is just as inaccurate. Of course there isn't a good word in English that fits, as "it" sounds disrespectful.

 

[nPeace]

Er, no.



Ah, prophesy.



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.



"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.

Then I think you don't understand the illustration with real and counterfeit money.

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?

By "population", I assume you mean group. However, the truth is made available to all people.
It's only hidden from those who don't want it. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 Why? John 6:6
The verses following shows that it is available to all who are seeking.

Not really. They say one interpretation is better than others based on available data and testing.

How is that any different to what we do?

They don't just claim stuff.

They do. They make claims based on what they believe.
True Religion does not claim stuff. They reach reasonable conclusions based on available data and testing.
This can go on until...

We'll get nowhere trying to make one seem inferior to the other.
While I know both science and religion use different methods, I do see them having many similarities,

When people try to make science the only and correct method, and try to lower the usefulness and significance of religion, you have a problem, and you're going to meet a very hard place, because you are making science a religion.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

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

Including scientist... I agree.
That's the point I am making also.
What's the point of you saying that?

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).

"You can't use the Bible to prove itself", is a very interesting argument to me.
Why would a person say that?
I can only think of two reasons. Either they don't know what the Bible is, and or, they don't believe there is any evidence supporting the "claims" of the Bible.

We can look at both of those.
#1. The Bible is a collection of books, written over a 1600 year period. Which means that the last author is 16 centuries from the first.
If the 40 or so writers agree... for example, somewhere down the line, we find confirmation for an event 8... 10... 12... centuries in the past...
Of course we can "use the Bible to prove the Bible".

Better yet, if the 40 or so writers agree, and they are harmonious... agreeing on one message that is like a thread that binds the first writing to every book, down to the last... which is what we have in the Bible...
Of course we can "use the Bible to prove the Bible".

#2. There is both external and internal evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible.
For example, centuries before evidence was found to satisfy critics who claimed there was no evidence for King Hezekiah, the Bible gave details about this king, and events surrounding him... and that's only one case out of many.
Archaeological discoveries confirmed what was written centuries ago... in the Bible.
List

Based on the evidence supporting the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible, that's good reason to "use the Bible to prove the Bible".
It can be trusted.

Do we expect every piece of evidence to be found? That would be like finding every fossil of every creature that ever walked on earth.
No one could be that unreasonable.
We don't even ask scientists to produce that kind of evidence... but people accept their claim.
When it comes to the Bible, reason seems to leave the room of skeptics.

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 did. The two examples I gave. You didn't see them?
Or, are they not good examples?

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

It doesn't make a difference? Yeah, best we drop it then.

 

[blü 2]

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.

It doesn't heal the sick, elect honest politicians, prevent keyboard malfunction, at any rate greater than chance. It doesn't fix flat tires or address global warming at all. In reality it doesn't do anything a placebo couldn't. Unless you tithe, in which case it takes your money, of course.

Why do you think its numbers are falling away at an accelerating rate through the Western world?

Meanwhile, over in the science section, the James Webb telescope is already rewriting parts of our understanding of the universe, there's another breakthrough in the development of quick-charging batteries for vehicles &c, immunology is providing successful new treatments of some cancers, and Western high tech is helping Ukraine with their Russian problem. All the real stuff, you might say.

 

[nPeace]

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?

Maybe you are misunderstanding. Maybe you are just using very trivial examples.
In either case, I'll get back to you on this.

 

[nPeace]

It doesn't heal the sick, elect honest politicians, prevent keyboard malfunction, at any rate greater than chance. It doesn't fix flat tires or address global warming at all. In reality it doesn't do anything a placebo couldn't. Unless you tithe, in which case it takes your money, of course.

Why do you think its numbers are falling away at an accelerating rate through the Western world?

Meanwhile, over in the science section, the James Webb telescope is already rewriting parts of our understanding of the universe, there's another breakthrough in the development of quick-charging batteries for vehicles &c, immunology is providing successful new treatments of some cancers, and Western high tech is helping Ukraine with their Russian problem. All the real stuff, you might say.

That's not true.
True religion accomplishes more than you could imagine.
I don't have the time to go the whole 9 yards, but...

People who have the right mindset can counter global warming. Do you disagree?
It has been said, that if everyone practiced true religion, there would be no need for policemen. No one would die of lung cancer, from cigarette smoke - internal, or external. Diseases from unsanitary conditions would disappear - even malaria from deadly mosquitoes. Jails would all be empty, and be used for a benficial establishment, because honesty would prevail, and the crime would end. Unwanted teen pregnancies would end, and so would STDs.

I could give you a long list.
You see, it all depends on the mind, and true religion effectively changes that.
If we change the mind of men, we change societies.

True religion changes the minds for the better.
Whom do you think is among those having a reputation for having the cleanest and most environmentally friendly buildings?

Those practicing true religion.

 

[nPeace]

I use too simple words sometimes when I write. If you want it in the correct words. I don't have beliefs in the end as if they are true. Truth I leave to God, if She exists. I have faith in God, but I don't know if She exists or not. I don't even believe that it is true that She exists. I only have faith.

No knowledge, no truth, no testimony or what not. I have only blind faith in Her, if She exists.
I am a strong general skeptic after all, so I follow how I understand the world as a skeptic.

Is there such a thing as blind faith? Is that a secular term?

 

[nPeace]

I can't speak for this particular poster, but many use "she" to point out that a spiritual being would not have a gender, and that to continue to refer to God as "he" is just as inaccurate. Of course there isn't a good word in English that fits, as "it" sounds disrespectful.

Yes, God is neither male nor female, but accepts the masculine gender. Would you like to guess why?

 

[nPeace]

Why do you think its numbers are falling away at an accelerating rate through the Western world?

The numbers are falling among the false religions, because they are being exposed for what they are. Revelation 17

 

[dybmh]

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.

great. I can see that.

Question: do you think that selfish-pride is the same or very similar to vain-glory? are they, in your view, essentially the same thing?

 

[rational experiences]

The his story of man. Says father was first naturally highest man and spiritual. In the past every human mutual equal innate psychic healer aware. Same DNA same parents same advice.

Not special...mutual.

Today some of us still consciously exist aware naturally yet most however think they're special. Special is your self mistake...don't self idolate. Told. Father told you. You ignored him.

Family advise family...no special family member ever existed as together we tell a story. For family. Hence being family says you are not special.

Warning don't ignore our holy father...our consciousness.

Science only ever owned light. Says mind of man living a healthy life as light exists.

Science not even practiced first hence hadn't owned anything. Your first lie as a theist. The warning by holy father.

So you knew the immaculate was historic natural law and first with earth in laws space...no light and coldest.

Now rationally the immaculate does not exist in law. Only light does supported cooled by immaculate body also. Support body only.

So it's extremely wrong to thesis about the immaculate.

In science using light ..... Burning to practice science by alchemical gained machine. Products you convert as light owner man. By use of applied light.

You theoried I however wanted immaculate cold clear dark out of mass of earth. For science.

Which in mass is carbon actually. As a gas isn't mass. Carbon dark but clear as burning stopped by cold clear.

So for science to obtain their ultimate goal non burning....it's to remove all the heavens to a non burning theme by their machine controlled scientific conversion.

No heavens. Is the answer in science as no light.

Nothing answer correct.
Sin of men in science no mass either burnt out.
No heavens body ..gone sacrificed.

What not owning light by science only means.

As there is no first in natural law there is only evolution then changed evolution By blasting.

Science thought says only evolution is law. Blasting is why evolution changed....science never owned a law.

Science said other suns seem to own a huge planetary presence. Ours burst. It seems by amount of moons that most planets had actually blown up.

Why evolution and blasting is real in our universe. So other galaxies prove there is no science law. Why men said my observation machine proved my thesis science is the destroyer...correctly advised. By observation only.

Yet ignores his owned observations.

 

[Left Coast]

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?

Firstly, I want to note that I didn't get an answer to my question here. How did you determine that the major moral problem of humanity is people "deciding to be their own god" when that demonstrably contradicts all the available evidence that most humans through history have been theistic? And particularly in the West, have derived their morals from what they think their God has declared as right and wrong? Does it just boil down to "because the Bible says so?" If so, please just say that because it'll save a lot of time in the conversation.

As to your question, I don't lump all religion together as "bad," personally. So I don't really want to speak for people who would. Similarly, I could ask an analogous question back to you. Since there is "good and bad in everything," does it not then stand to reason that there is also good and bad in people determining their own morality apart from authoritarian religious dictates? Some people will make wise, healthy choices and some people won't. Much like religions do, really.

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?

I have two thoughts here. First, one of the quintessential elements of growing from child to adult is learning to question and even challenge the authority figures in our lives. When we are helpless and clueless as young children, we really have little choice but to unquestioningly obey our parents. Yet as we intellectually mature and develop, we begin to realize that the rules, and even the values, of our parents are sometimes flawed or irrational or unfair or have harmed and stymied us in various ways. And we realize our parents are really not all-wise and all-knowing and actually make mistakes and commit immoral acts just like we do and everyone else does. And so as adults we hopefully unlearn the crappy rules and values we were expected to obey without question as children. Imagine the tragedy of an adult who never did so and went his whole life just blindly, unquestioningly obeying whatever his parents dictated!

Secondly, the key phrase in your question is "a dad that proves trustworthy." A dad who is trustworthy, from my perspective, is a guy who can explain his reasons for what he does with his kids. He can morally reason in a thoughtful, non-authoritarian way. He is nonplussed by suggestions of how he might parent better, and willing to try new ways of doing things because he realizes he is imperfect.

So again, when it comes to setting up these rules, how do they actually get decided? What is the reasoning behind them?

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?

My location is right in my profile. I'm quite morally opposed to many of the things the American military has done, yes indeed.

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

Well first of all, yes, I think you should be extremely skeptical of what random anonymous people on the internet claim. And I wouldn't fault you for one second if you were! But also, the stakes of you accepting or rejecting that I am who I say I am are extremely low. It has little to no bearing on your offline life. That's quite different from what you're asking vis a vis God. You want me, and every other non-JW of the world, to accept that your holy book is literally from the creator of the universe and your organization has the correct interpretation of said book and that we should all reorganize our whole lives to follow your rules for precisely that reason. Those are quite different stakes, and any reasonable person would quite understandably want much stronger evidence for your claim than for mine if that's what the stakes are. As would you I'm quite sure, for any other God claims that you don't accept.

Secondly, if you want evidence that I am a real person who you're really talking to, I have ample ways to prove that if you're actually serious about it. We could connect on another platform, we could have a Skype call and you could see and hear me. You could watch me log in and type a post and watch it post to the website as I've typed it. If you were so motivated, I could give you my physical address and you could literally come see me in person. Any reasonable person could conclude from the evidence that...I'm me.

We have not one iota of that level of evidence for God.

Now yes, you could go the solipsist route and claim that we can't "know" anything outside our own heads. But I personally don't find that a very reasonable position and I don't think that's what you actually think anyway. So I don't think it's really worth the time to entertain it seriously.

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'.

They? God's pronouns are they/them?

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,

Prove it.

and people get it... millions have.... and millions more are.... and millions more will.

If we're playing a numbers game here, vastly more people think you've gotten the wrong message from God than those who think you've gotten the right one. And those numbers are not trending in your direction. I don't think you want to walk down that line of reasoning.

Millions won't, but that's not because they can't. They don't want to.

Is that really what you think? Is that what you think of me? You think I'm not a Jehovah's Witness because...I just don't want to hear what the creator of the universe thinks about things? Or is it more likely that I just honestly don't buy what you're selling and don't find it convincing?

 

[sayak83]

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?

It is evident to anyone who has read through history or is looking at current events.
I do not care what the problems of paleolithic people were but what the problems today are or tomorrow will be. And the root cause of our problems today is that people are so easily led by and conform to (secular and religious) absolutist ideologies and stop thinking carefully and correctly for themselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is there such a thing as blind faith? Is that a secular term?

Since I can't with objective reason, logic and evidence show what God/objective reality is, I have blind faith.
I have no arguments to justify my faith, that isn't subjective and isn't based on how it makes sense to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some lights are real dim.

Which ones in this case?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which ones in this case?

Always everybody else, because I am special and my understanding is the correct one and you are so wrong.

 

[blü 2]

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

But you show that it partly works and imply that it used to work well.

Whereas God never says or does, lets noxious folk like Putin and Trump flourish, does nothing about Covid,.

No wonder the former fans are quitting in their droves.

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

No, it doesn't account for reality. Otherwise the authors of the bible would have got the basics right, such as a spherical earth, heliocentry, gravity, orbits, deep space. Instead in the bible the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll all fall to earth. And God used to be afraid of those new-fangled iron chariots, you'll recall. And you'll recall where [he] murdered children for observing correctly that one of [his] ingroup had alopecia, instead of fixing the alopecia. Nasty, ignorant, lazy, piece of work, that God of yours. How many did [he] kill with Covid in the last year or two?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. I think it is far better for us to find our own way, adjusting our understanding as we go. That allows for freedom as well as improvement and change.

And how do you think that’s working out?

Peoples’ attitudes are worse than ever before