Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
How would he know what Jesus looked like? He never met him? Same problem with a couple of dudes saying they saw Moses and Elijah pop up. Did they have name tags on?) Paul met Jesus in a vision.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How would he know what Jesus looked like? He never met him? Same problem with a couple of dudes saying they saw Moses and Elijah pop up. Did they have name tags on?) Paul met Jesus in a vision.
Did faith or evidence prove Einstein wrong?During the 5th Solvay Conference in 1927, Einstein repeated his contention that there was a logical inconsistency at the heart of quantum theory. Niels Bohr, having a background in philosophy as well as mathematics, repeatedly tried to iron out the ontological contradictions of the theory, but never to Einstein’s satisfaction. Bohr was, ultimately, comfortable with contradiction in a way Einstein never was. So, which was the rational scientist? Or is ‘rational scientist’ in fact as much of an unrealisable ideal as ‘objective paradigm’?
I suppose the supernatural nature of a vision gives immediate access to this kind of information. As they're religious experiences I'm not bent on questioning them to the Nth degree as I only have someone's word for it. I believe Paul had a vision and I believe he thought it to be Jesus. Whether or not he did is almost historically irrelevant now because he clearly went on to invent most Christian theology and found many churches.How would he know what Jesus looked like? He never met him? Same problem with a couple of dudes saying they saw Moses and Elijah pop up. Did they have name tags on?
I dunno. I'm a theist and I consider religion a fandom. You got your cosplayers, your die-hards, your "I only saw the movie" types, your conventions, etc.Calling it a "franchise" and assuming that it's all psychologically need based only shows that you don't understand theism nearly as well as you think you do.
Some people did. I can say that in hindsight it is generally seen as an evil thing.I've seen the posters for eugenics conferences in the US. We didn't disagree with Nazis. We took part in their delusions of grandeur.
Maybe, but God is often portrayed as not knowing nearly as much as He thinks He does. In Jesus' parables, characters standing in for God are always cruel and/or pathetically ignorant.I suppose the supernatural nature of a vision gives immediate access to this kind of information. As they're religious experiences I'm not bent on questioning them to the Nth degree as I only have someone's word for it. I believe Paul had a vision and I believe he thought it to be Jesus. Whether or not he did is almost historically irrelevant now because he clearly went on to invent most Christian theology and found many churches.
Not by the people who are trying to get rid of POC and other minorities NOW.Some people did. I can say that in hindsight it is generally seen as an evil thing.
By the term “existential purpose”, do you mean “a purpose of all existence/all that exists”, or rather “a purpose of a personal or individual existence”? I, an atheist, believe very much in purpose. I discern purpose as perhaps the most important aspect of human life, but rather than a general or universal bequeathment, I view purpose as a personal determination. As much is clear in the Latin verb from which English purpose derives: propono, “I put forward/I set forth”…such an action is necessarily a personal one, not one which can be imposed from without. Each man determines what the purpose of his own existence is to be, or not, in which case the individual existence is ultimately meaningless (Kierkegaard, Either/Or). One of my primary beliefs is that each man must discern his own purpose in life, that which gives his life meaning and renders a sense of fulfillment. In this, purpose, being a mental conception, does not exist apart from, or more generally than, the individual man. What of necessity does purpose have to do with deity, though? Of course, as a disbeliever in deity I do not believe that purpose derives from deity, and I can understand how purpose can be discerned apart from deity or despite a disbelief in deity. I certainly do not believe that, even if for the sake of argument I were to grant that deity exists, that purpose (being a personal evaluation) is something which can be imposed generally upon mankind or upon the universe by that deity. Purpose derives personally from within an individual mind, and cannot derive from without. I suppose that means that “existential purpose”, if by that you mean the purpose of all existence, does not exist. What is your idea of existential purpose, or of what an existential purpose might be?I see this all the time in discussions involving the mystery origin and possible purpose of existence, where the atheism mob cannot countenance even the slightest hint of a question regarding any existential purpose. They are a thousand percent certain that there is no purpose to existence even though they have no logic or evidence to base that conclusion on, and no scientific way to investigate the question.
Which is why we see so many more errors of judgement than we should. Creationism shouldn’t have any broad appeal. Trump should have been the first rejected as a nominee in 2015 (as he was in 2011). And so on.
People should learn critical thinking skills. They should learn what sound conclusions are versus emotional responses. Many people who hold bad beliefs are capable of better thinking.
I think many believers have doubts but are pressured by others to accept what they are told. The need to belong and conform is powerful and can lead folks to believe things they don’t believe.
No, it's not. Nothing of Santa Claus is real. We know the Coca-Cola corporation made the red-suited character. But St. Nicholas was real.Two ways of saying the same thing
And what do you think shamans doNo, it's not. Nothing of Santa Claus is real. We know the Coca-Cola corporation made the red-suited character. But St. Nicholas was real.
Jesus wasn't real. But someone who does things commom for shamans, some who inspired the Jesus character was probably real.
You should read Book 5 of Dostoevky's The Brothers Karamazov, called "The Grand Inquisitor." Or perhaps watch Sir John Gielgud do it.If Jesus HAD written a scripture, the church would've been the first to burn it.
Many of the same things Jesus did.And what do you think shamans do
That's not a helpful response.Many of the same things Jesus did.
Haha, do you suppose that Jesus drank the haoma and went into the trance state in the Garden of Gethsemane? I think that there was probably a real Yehoshua upon which the legend is built, and he was probably some type of prophetic/apocalyptic character (maybe even a bit looney, judging by the response to him of the Jewish leadership), but precisely what he was or what he did we can never know with any degree of certainty.Jesus wasn't real. But someone who does things commom for shamans, some who inspired the Jesus character was probably real.
To be fair to Paul, when your brain generates a vision, it feels not just free, but entitled, to label the elements of the vision ─ and why not, seeing that it's your vision?How would he know what Jesus looked like? He never met him? Same problem with a couple of dudes saying they saw Moses and Elijah pop up. Did they have name tags on?
Ha! I knew I saw Elvis in the market…I just knew it!when your brain generates a vision, it feels not just free, but entitled, to label the elements of the vision ─ and why not, seeing that it's your vision?
Someone is out there voting for this guy, sending him millions, and attending his rallies. Your circle of friends might be rare outliers. Some 78 million voters selected a twice impeached conman in 2020, and he only lost the electoral college by 42,000 votes in four states. And you think my assessment of many people as having poor judgment is a mistake?My evangelical friends are in agreement about Trump’s unworthiness for office and are mortified that so many in their demographic were bamboozled by the idiot.
I think you may be extrapolating too far from your stereotype, mistaking a correlation for a causative force. Not all believers are idiots though quite a few are.
Too bad you avoided explaining how this is true, so I have no reason to accept it. When you make a claim, use facts and explain how it's true.Hey kettle, you’ve got something in common with the pot.
How do you know? If they have doubts why do they continue to believe in ideas that not only lack evidence, but are contrary to what we understand of the universe?They all have doubts alright and some maintain faith anyhow and the ones I know aren't believers because of peer pressure.
It is the prevalence of religious belief that is the pressure. Ever admit to being an atheist amongst a crowd of Christians? They get cold pretty fast. The response of any believer when they learn that a person is an atheist is quire remarkable.They don’t really have to pressure each other though they would call it encouraging each other.
That's hard to justify without facts. It's overly convenient as well.I suppose the supernatural nature of a vision gives immediate access to this kind of information.
But isn't the more fantastic the claim justification for more stringent questioning? If Jim claims he ate a ham sandwhich for lunch we can take his word for ir. If he claims to be the second coming of Jesus, well, we want evidence. Wouldn't you have quite a few questions if you take his word for it?As they're religious experiences I'm not bent on questioning them to the Nth degree as I only have someone's word for it.
Many believers trust him and base faith on these stories, so it's kind of relevant to historians who want to get facts right.I believe Paul had a vision and I believe he thought it to be Jesus. Whether or not he did is almost historically irrelevant now because he clearly went on to invent most Christian theology and found many churches.
It is not, and your examples are not at all analogous. My assertion answers a primary tenet of Christianity (and of the other Abrahamic faiths, for that matter), which is that we humans can know about God by means of scripture. Again, fundamentalist Christians tell us that we should believe in God “because the Bible says so”. Even among non-fundy Christians, though…in all of Christianity including that which does not adhere to the doctrine of “sola scriptura”, the means to knowledge of God is by means of the testimony of other people, particularly through scripture. Because of this, the Bible is proposed by Christians to be an epistemikon, something which validly imparts knowledge, particularly the knowledge of God. Can you think of any way a human gains a concept of “God” other than by scripture? I say that there is none. I call the Bible “epistemically worthless regarding a knowledge of deity” in refutation of the proposition that we men can know that God exists because we read about it in scripture.