nazz
Doubting Thomas
That is exactly why I used it since you say what people think of your beliefs should not matter.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are people afraid of their beliefs being questioned ?
- Thread starter psychoslice
- Start date
That is exactly why I used it since you say what people think of your beliefs should not matter.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Invented by whom?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I have been in trouble by the moderators for saying a belief is silly, but I rather the person say it is silly, its an honest answer, and i feel the person has the right to say that, after all there not calling the one who believes in the sill belief silly, but the belief system itself which no one owns, its all in the mind.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
my god, who hasn't had their finger in the pie, that would need another thread to explain it all, but from Constantine onward it has been added to, subtracted from and on and on it went from one Council to the next, until it came to a time when they couldn't get away with it any longer.
"Silly' as a word has different connotations for different people. I'd rather say 'not totally logical' or 'contradictory' . The statement has less emotion then.
i.e. "I'm a ________ )declaration of a religion)."
"Well, that's just silly, isn't it?"
I've never studied it like you, and others. (I'm not interested. My own faith and sadhana keeps me busy enough thanks) but fortunately there are people like you that just make more sense to me. That's why I believe the way I do. So thank you for that.
"I went to a football (soccer) game and the score was 83 to nothing."
versus.. "I went too. The score was 2 nothing."
You see, one just makes more sense than the other.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
"Silly' as a word has different connotations for different people. I'd rather say 'not totally logical' or 'contradictory' . The statement has less emotion then.
i.e. "I'm a ________ )declaration of a religion)."
"Well, that's just silly, isn't it?"
Yes I see your point, but for myself it doesn't bother me.
Maybe it's Australia versus Canada. Note how football varies. I'm sure that 'silly' isn't quite that extreme, but it could vary enough to have one person get their dander uop, and the next not care.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I've never studied it like you, and others. (I'm not interested. My own faith and sadhana keeps me busy enough thanks) but fortunately there are people like you that just make more sense to me. That's why I believe the way I do. So thank you for that.
"I went to a football (soccer) game and the score was 83 to nothing."
versus.. "I went too. The score was 2 nothing."
You see, one just makes more sense than the other.
Thank you, i like your way of thinking also, and we don't need to make a belief out of that lol.:jester3:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
That is not an answer to my question. If Jesus did not exist who exactly invented him in the beginning?
You might want to check this out with regard to what scholars have to say:
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the very first words are: The neutrality of this article is disputed.
When said scholars start with the premise, "Jesus existed." who is to argue?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
And the very first words are: The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Yeah, but check out the footnotes. They back it up.
You are more than welcome to argue with scholars.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
That is why I usually keep such thoughts to myself. As I explained I was only using it to make a point. Sorry if I offended. Atheists have called me irrational, stupid, home skooled, idiot, incapable of critical thought, unedcuated, and a host of other things for believing in God.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
The story of Jesus is as old as time itself, he's life is built from many god-men throughout history such as Krishna, Buddha, Isis and on and on it goes, the whole story points to your own awakening, to find the Christ, the Buddha or whatever name you like within yourself, all the rest of the story is others opinion on the story, and so we have people like ST.Paul who really didn't know of such a man as Jesus, the name Jesus was added to his writings, when in fact he was talking about the inner Christ which is a title, not a mans name.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Trust me, I am not offended. I get the feeling you are, though.
by what?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I found this interesting.
Why Religious Beliefs Are so Vehemently Defended
Atheists and scientists do not kill each other over their beliefs. The adherents of superstring theory have never killed opposing theorists, and Lamarckian Evolutionists never killed any Darwinian Evolutionists on account of their beliefs. Newton and Einstein may have disagreed, but they refrained from violently attacking each other's followers. Like them, Arius and Athanasius disagreed over theory in the 4th century, although in their case it wasn't physics, but about the nature of Christ. The Arians and the Nicene Christians, however, soon ended up damning each other to hell because of the other's "wrong" beliefs, and then resorted to murder, aggression and burning until the Arians had been wiped out. Well, that is one way to settle a theoretical dispute. But why is it the religious way? There is something about religious beliefs that leads to violent intolerance. I think it is this: the beliefs that you cherish, but which you think are maybe silly or untrue, are the beliefs that you will defend most irrationally and most aggressively. It's a defence mechanism. Rather than subject dodgy beliefs to the rigors of debate and questioning, it is easier to claim outrage and act aggressively when dodgy beliefs are challenged. This is why scientists, who want to learn which theories best describe the truth, actively engage in debate without ever, in history, killing each other over their differences with other strands of scientists.
Why Religious Beliefs Are so Vehemently Defended
Atheists and scientists do not kill each other over their beliefs. The adherents of superstring theory have never killed opposing theorists, and Lamarckian Evolutionists never killed any Darwinian Evolutionists on account of their beliefs. Newton and Einstein may have disagreed, but they refrained from violently attacking each other's followers. Like them, Arius and Athanasius disagreed over theory in the 4th century, although in their case it wasn't physics, but about the nature of Christ. The Arians and the Nicene Christians, however, soon ended up damning each other to hell because of the other's "wrong" beliefs, and then resorted to murder, aggression and burning until the Arians had been wiped out. Well, that is one way to settle a theoretical dispute. But why is it the religious way? There is something about religious beliefs that leads to violent intolerance. I think it is this: the beliefs that you cherish, but which you think are maybe silly or untrue, are the beliefs that you will defend most irrationally and most aggressively. It's a defence mechanism. Rather than subject dodgy beliefs to the rigors of debate and questioning, it is easier to claim outrage and act aggressively when dodgy beliefs are challenged. This is why scientists, who want to learn which theories best describe the truth, actively engage in debate without ever, in history, killing each other over their differences with other strands of scientists.
Neither. Option 3 is to whack away, destroy the structure, and rebuild it slightly better, then repeat ad nauseum. Eventually the structure will get more difficult to destroy (ie. more sophisticated belief system). Changing environments, or changing ANYTHING would be introducing additional challenges to the structure, and might again resolve in it being knocked down, to again be rebuilt with this in mind.
The really important thing is to NOT see being knocked down as a negative. That's when people start building defences for the sake of appearances, or as a way of avoiding cognitive dissonance. Instead, learn and move on in all things. Less scar tissue that way.
(and yeah, I'm aware I'm mixing metaphors. I'll learn from this and do better next time...lol)
Of course. Scholars do it all the time... (argue with scholars)!
There are disputed positions on this, and I'm pretty sure I've missed the context, but does the historical reality (or otherwise) of a man called Jesus tell us much? He could be anything from the Son of God, and a part of the Holy Trinity down to a con-artist or person of little consequence who has since had various legends attached to him. Or perhaps he's a fictional character. Who was Heracles? Ajax? Achilles?