Why do people believe what they believe?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The way I see that statement is one of a rebellious adolescent who thinks growing up means complete liberty, which in the end ònly leads to sedition. Humanity is in need of guidance to protect itself from its own ignorance. An adult, knowing this, will embrace that guidance.

Regards Tony

Perhaps, but I find religious guidance to be generally inane, often cruel and misguided. You keep it, it offends me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Perhaps, but I find religious guidance to be generally inane, often cruel and misguided. You keep it, it offends me.

I would offer it is only how we use the guidance, which is basically given in naught but love, knowing what Justice humanity needs, from a source that I see is all knowing.

Baha'u'llah did not write to all the Kings and Rulers, government's, ecclesiastical ranks and all the peoples of the earth for his own sake, he wrote to them, one and all, as to alleviate the suffering that the future conflicts, that were all predicted, would reak upon humanity, the future we are now in.

There is no better path than what has already been offered, it is the path humanity will eventually choose, what a blight on our memory, that we were all unable to produce the most peace in the 20th century.

The future will look back on our prehistoric mind, wondering how we could be so ignorant in implementing such simple choices.

Regards Tony

 

[RestlessSoul]

Or we could grow up, become men and not need a Shepherd.

Yeah, let us know when humanity, collectively, is ready to do that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would offer it is only how we use the guidance, which is basically given in naught but love, knowing what Justice humanity needs, from a source that I see is all knowing.

Baha'u'llah did not write to all the Kings and Rulers, government's, ecclesiastical ranks and all the peoples of the earth for his own sake, he wrote to them, one and all, as to alleviate the suffering that the future conflicts, that were all predicted, would reak upon humanity, the future we are now in.

There is no better path than what has already been offered, it is the path humanity will eventually choose, what a blight on our memory, that we were all unable to produce the most peace in the 20th century.

The future will look back on our prehistoric mind, wondering how we could be so ignorant in implementing such simple choices.

Regards Tony

I find Humanism works perfectly well in all those respects -- and without the need for supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Humanism is a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. That's not a bad stance to be going on with -- and we can do it without all those "thee's and thou's."

 

[Truthseeker]

My impression of Bahá'í is a well-meaning but flawed and therefore failed attempt at unification. The thinking must have been something like this:
-There are so many religions, and they all fight each other.
-Let's create a new religion to combine all the others.

The effect is, of course, one more religion, that is fighting with all the others.

Most Baha'is are not fighting other religions, and the Baha'i Faith is not intended as such. Other religions sometimes fight Baha'is. That is inevitable for any religion. Of course you know the fierce opposition to the Baha'i Faith in Iran for about 180 years. There are more Baha'is in interfaith groups in proportion to our numbers than any other religion. Your conclusion is understandable, though. Just about everything who are not Baha'is sees the Baha'i Faith as failing their mission if they investigate it and don't become Bahais.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yeah, let us know when humanity, collectively, is ready to do that.

As long as humanity holds onto it's variety of competing (and also infallible) religions, not any time soon. As I pointed out above, that requires abandoning the presumed supernatural, and relying on science and reason. Humanists consider humans themselves to be the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry, not invisible, silent gods.

 

[Tony B]

Show me the geography, historical events, and eye witness accounts outside the Bible that demonstrate that Christianity is the One Valid Religion™.

That would require you to conduct the same investigation Lee Strobel did, but you could always read his book and then tell me what you disagree with. I regularly investigate and question scripture and its meaning, I've yet to find out that the word of God is wrong. Of course I expect you not to do this, because that requires effort in a world that demands instant answers, but that's your choice, there are many books written on the subject to choose from.

Nope. I've read the Bible and considered it as well. The Bible apparently doesn't tell me what the Bible telling you. And that's okay.

Also, "us" means something besides "me and you," use your pronoun antecedents.

I don't take orders from anyone but God, I'll use the language I see fit, and the Bible is addressed to all humanity, whether you like that or not.

And whether Christian or Muslim, unsolicited, this is called 'proselytizing.' Incidentally, proselytizing here violates the forum rules.

Here's the actual definition of 'proselytizing';

proselytized; proselytizing
Synonyms of proselytize
intransitive verb
1
: to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2
: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

At no point have I tried to recruit anyone, I have repeatedly told you, and others, that you have free will to do whatever you wish, because that is an absolute truth. What I have told you is the truth according to the Bible, that is not proselytizing, you can accept what it says or not, you choose to deny it, the consequences are yours, that's it.

Again with the "us." God does not tell me I have free will, regardless what God tells you.

The Bible is addressed to all humanity, whether you deny it or not, I'm sure a Muslim would say the same about the Quran, I'm not going to deny what it says because it hurts your feelings, that would be blasphemy.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...especially in the fashion you did.

I have no idea what you're referring to, I have explained what proselytizing actually is and how I specifically did not do it.

The thread is about why people believe what they believe. How does that come from an accusation?

I was accused of arrogance for claiming there is one true religion, even on a logical basis alone that must be true because they all contradict each other at some point. I make the case for Christianity based on facts that are in the public domain, and some discernment of history around the period of Christ, which is how all historical events must be assessed. To me it's not important, I have experienced the Holy Spirit so I don't need any re-assurance, I have seen the same of others many times. Why would you expect a Christian to say otherwise? what do you expect me to do? blaspheme and tell you I like other religions? I have no ill will towards anyone, but I'm not going to tell you Hinduism or Buddhism are great because it's what you want to hear, again, that is a sin in my faith. Followers of those faiths have free will, they can do as they choose and the consequences are theirs, that is an incontrovertible truth.

Sure you do. You don't, however, have the right to impose your beliefs upon others by pretending your religion is the "One Valid Religion™."

How is expressing what the Bible clearly says 'imposing' anything on anyone? its simply the truth according to the Bible, is you ego so fragile you cannot understand this? You don't have to agree, and clearly you don't, but isn't the case you don't like a Christian telling you what's in the Bible? otherwise what's all the fuss? take it or leave it.

I've already demonstrated how you are in this very thread.


Of course I can. I choose not to.

You haven't demonstrated anything other than an intolerance to opinions other than yours, and Christianity is the one true faith isn't my opinion, it's what the Bible teaches those who read it, take it or leave it.

God may have power over you, but God has no power over me.

You can believe that if you wish, as I keep saying, the consequences are yours, you claim to have read the Bible so you know what they are, whether you believe it or not.

They are not relevant to anyone, and I just explained to you why. And sure, I can choose to ignore them. I can also choose to dismiss or reject them and tell you why.

Well obviously there will be no agreement on this, but you dismissing God ultimately has no bearing on the truth, just your own journey to the end. There are many testimonies of famous atheists and what they discover at their end, none of them make great stories, choose wisely.

 

[Tony B]

And I suppose you think it's going so much better in theocracies -- like Saudi Arabia and Iran? How many one-handed people does the world need, after all?

No, obviously I don't endorse Islam or 'theocracies', so that's a bit of a strawman isn't it. When you have no moral or ethical roots you are damned by man's propensity for violence and sin, we're seeing it all right now, how's that going for everyone?

 

[Tony B]

As long as humanity holds onto it's variety of competing (and also infallible) religions, not any time soon. As I pointed out above, that requires abandoning the presumed supernatural, and relying on science and reason. Humanists consider humans themselves to be the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry, not invisible, silent gods.

Would these be the same 'humanists' dismembering babies, telling men they can have babies, telling men and women they can 'have it all', injecting poisons into humanity, overseeing the worse health outcomes in human history? Is the humanism and progressivism we can expect? a world where we're told we'll be replaced by machines, or merging of man with machine? Good luck 'trusting the science'....

 

[SalixIncendium]

That would require you to conduct the same investigation Lee Strobel did, but you could always read his book and then tell me what you disagree with. I regularly investigate and question scripture and its meaning, I've yet to find out that the word of God is wrong. Of course you I expect you not to do this, because that requires effort in a world that demands instant answers, but that's your choice, there are many books written on the subject to choose from.

In other word, you got nothin'.

I don't take orders from anyone but God, I'll use the language I see fit, and the Bible is addressed to all humanity, whether you like that or not.

I wasn't giving you order. I would giving you some advice on how to be better understood by your audience. Take it or leave it.

I was accused of arrogance for claiming there is one true religion...

Really? I can't figure out why.

...even on a logical basis alone that must be true because they all contradict each other at some point.

As does Christianity.

I make the case for Christianity based on facts...

Good. When do you plan on introducing some?

I have experienced the Holy Spirit so I don't need any re-assurance, I have seen the same of others many times.

Good. It's foolish to assume everyone has.

Why would you expect a Christian to say otherwise?

I don't know. Respect for another person to have alternate views?

what do you expect me to do? blaspheme and tell you I like other religions?

No. I expect you to respect your fellow human and their right to their own views and beliefs as they might respect you and your own.

I have no ill will towards anyone, but I'm not going to tell you Hinduism or Buddhism are great because it's what you want to hear, again, that is a sin in my faith.

I never asked to hear it, nor would I expect you to sin. And I certainly never would have the arrogance or audacity to claim my religion as the One Valid Religion™.

Followers of those faiths have free will, they can do as they choose and the consequences are theirs, that is an incontrovertible truth.

Except where I demonstrated that it's not.

How is expressing what the Bible clearly says 'imposing' anything on anyone?

It's not, so long as one is asked. If I start telling you how my cornbread recipe is yours and how my recipe says that it is, would that not be an imposition?

its simply the truth according to the Bible, is you ego so fragile you cannot understand this?

The irony here is that it's usually a bruised ego that has to resort to character attacks to attempt to save face.

You don't have to agree, and clearly you don't, but isn't the case you don't like a Christian telling you what's in the Bible? otherwise what's all the fuss? take it or leave it.

Who in this thread asked what's in the Bible? Why do you assume the person you're speaking with doesn't already know?

You haven't demonstrated anything other than an intolerance to opinions other than yours...

How so? I didn't offer any opinions. I spoke nothing of my religious views. I was merely being critical of your behavior here.

I have no problem with your personal beliefs. In fact, I applaud them. What I'm intolerant of it telling others that yours is valid and theirs are not.

and Christianity is the one true faith isn't my opinion, it's what the Bible teaches those who read it, take it or leave it.

And again, my cornbread being the one true cornbread isn't my opinion. It's what my cookbook teaches to those that read it.

Well obviously there will be no agreement on this, but you dismissing God ultimately has no bearing on the truth, just your own journey to the end.

I'd like to apologize for typing "anyone" when I meant "everyone." That was an error on my part.

That said, please point out where I dismissed God having any bearing on the truth?

There are many testimonies of famous atheists and what they discover at their end, none of them make great stories, choose wisely.

Please share one or two with the audience.

 

[Heyo]

In secular societies how has that worked out so far? Nazism, Communism? not great is it.

In Christianity, how has that worked out so far? Persecution, conversion by the sword, crusades, schism, more crusades, more schism, witch hunts, wars, Naziism? Not great, is it?

You see, two can play that game, and you're losing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would these be the same 'humanists' dismembering babies, telling men they can have babies, telling men and women they can 'have it all', injecting poisons into humanity, overseeing the worse health outcomes in human history? Is the humanism and progressivism we can expect? a world where we're told we'll be replaced by machines, or merging of man with machine? Good luck 'trusting the science'....

Humanists do not "dismember babies." A baby is DEFINED as having been born, and that would be murder. Humanists don't do that. We also don't redefine words to suit our egenda, as you have just done. We do, however, permit a woman to make her own healthcare decisions -- and yes, that includes whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

Nor do humanists tell men they can have babies, unless it be through adoption. And let's be perfectly accurate, even in a straight family adopting a child, one of those adopters is a man -- and after adoption he is called a father. And there is no scientific bar to two men adopting a baby either, your prejudices aside.

I have no idea what you mean by men and women "having it all."

We regularly inject poisons into humanity, that's true. Most of the time it's called chemo-therapy, and it can help rid a body of cancer. Perhaps you think that's a bad thing, so let's hope you don't become a cancer victim.

And do you really think we're seeing "the wor[st] health outcomes in human history?" We replace failing organs and missing limbs. We cure illnesses that used to be death sentences. We can immunize people for life against viruses that used to kill or disable us. We are living longer than at any time in human history. We are helping the deaf to hear and the blind to see.

Humanists do not suppose we will be replaced by machines, and many are leary of the potential dangers of Artificial Intelligence. But you also include "progressivism" in your rant, which is odd, to me. You think making progress is bad? Do you see yourself with nothing but a flock of sheep to tend, and beating your laundry against the rocks in the local stream? Well, each to their own.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't take orders from anyone but God, I'll use the language I see fit, and the Bible is addressed to all humanity, whether you like that or not.

Of course you do -- you take orders from the humans who wrote the words god is supposed to have said.

 

[Tony B]

In other word, you got nothin'.

I literally gave you a complete book to read, that easily addresses all the points I made, it's too long a subject to cover, it's not a one sentence answer. You could also go and check the check the discoveries of Ron Wyatt, use Odysee, Youtube is not keen on you knowing. For example, Noah's Ark lies in the Mount Ararat Mountain range and has been ratified by the Islamic Turkish Government, it matches perfectly the dimensions according to the Bible, and there is a wealth of evidence to be found at this site. Oh wait, I'm not allowed to mention that away from a 'Great Flood' thread am I....

I wasn't giving you order. I would giving you some advice on how to be better understood by your audience. Take it or leave it.

I'll leave it thanks.

Really? I can't figure out why.

You asked the question, I gave you the answer, if I was wrong please explain?

As does Christianity.

Of course Christianity contradicts other religions, it's the only one that stands proper scrutiny, demonstrably so.

Good. When do you plan on introducing some?

I just gave you some above reference Noah's Ark, amongst others, it's a fact that Jesus is the most documented figure of his time, there are many more, but you're not interested in facts.

Good. It's foolish to assume everyone has.

Where did I state otherwise?

I don't know. Respect for another person to have alternate views?

How is stating the truth according to Christianity not respecting others views? it is what is, believe it or don't, your choice.

No. I expect you to respect your fellow human and their right to their own views and beliefs as they might respect you and your own.

Do you understand the words 'You have free will, it's your choice'? apparently not.

I never asked to hear it, nor would I expect you to sin. And I certainly never would have the arrogance or audacity to claim my religion as the One Valid Religion™.

Can you read? The Bible says it is, what else do you expect me to say as a Christian? You expect me to say 'Yea, Christianity is great, not sure about it's authenticity though...' seriously? It's not 'arrogance', it's faith, it's literally what faith is.

Except where I demonstrated that it's not.

What? so people don't have free will then? what exactly did you demonstrate and how? you mean you made some unsubstantiated claim?

It's not, so long as one is asked. If I start telling you how my cornbread recipe is yours and how my recipe says that it is, would that not be an imposition?

Oh I see, so I have to be asked for my views or opinions otherwise I'm 'offending' people? seriously? how old are you? 5?

The irony here is that it's usually a bruised ego that has to resort to character attacks to attempt to save face.

Don't do it then, and work on that ego.

Who in this thread asked what's in the Bible? Why do you assume the person you're speaking with doesn't already know?

Anyone who asks why I believe what I do basically, or do you expect me to answer and avoid mentioning the Bible because it offends you?

How so? I didn't offer any opinions. I spoke nothing of my religious views. I was merely being critical of your behavior here.

So God not having any power over you isn't an opinion? really? you've made several of your opinions clear, and I have no problem with that, just you antagonistic approach because you don't like what the bible says...or something...

I have no problem with your personal beliefs. In fact, I applaud them. What I'm intolerant of it telling others that yours is valid and theirs are not.

Can you give me an example where I said that? please, just one, I've simply presented what the Bible says and what I believe, whilst stressing free will for all. As a Christian I simply follow the Bible and I'm telling you what it says, believe it or not, it's that simple. The only measure of whether a belief is valid or not is whether it's true, if you want to believe something else that's up to you.

And again, my cornbread being the one true cornbread isn't my opinion. It's what my cookbook teaches to those that read it.

That's simply a stupid and facetious comment, as I have already explained, the wealth of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible is simply unmatched elsewhere.

I'd like to apologize for typing "anyone" when I meant "everyone." That was an error on my part.

That said, please point out where I dismissed God having any bearing on the truth?

You didn't read what I wrote (a common theme here), I said YOU dismissing God has no bearing on the truth, that is not the same.

Please share one or two with the audience.

Fill your boots, sources in the show notes, I'm sure you'll dismiss it, but these are well known.

 

[Kathryn]

I had one cat that used to get under the covers but she is no longer with me.
Even if a cat got under the covers I'd be okay since i wear pajama bottoms!

Princess is always by my side in my bed and she flexes her claws.
Carl has no claws because the previous owner had him declawed.

Thank you for probably saving Carl's life. Here's the deal about declawed cats - it's not like there's a shortage of cats.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe what I believe because it works for me. Period. Not because it does or doesn't work for anyone else.

 

[Heyo]

At no point have I tried to recruit anyone, I have repeatedly told you, and others, that you have free will to do whatever you wish, because that is an absolute truth. What I have told you is the truth according to the Bible, that is not proselytizing, you can accept what it says or not, you choose to deny it, the consequences are yours, that's it.

You obviously haven't broken the rules, yet, otherwise you'd have been contacted by the mods, but you are close.
And that's only in part because of what you said, but also because of how you said it.
You came in here like a drunk, with an open fly, and you shat on the table. Not a great entrance.

I didn't know if you were a troll or if you were serious, and I'm not sure now. You've made some claims that were evidently not true and others which were not evidently true, with the confidence of a zealous believer. They were all off-topic, so I didn't address them.

I'm one of the last to back out of a heated debate, but your style isn't what we are used to here. I suggest you calm down, and try not to behave like the caricature of a "True Christian™". You make other Christians look bad.

 

[Tony B]

Humanists do not "dismember babies." A baby is DEFINED as having been born, and that would be murder. Humanists don't do that. We also don't redefine words to suit our egenda, as you have just done. We do, however, permit a woman to make her own healthcare decisions -- and yes, that includes whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

A child, or a life, is created at the moment of conception, you can play semantics if you like, but we both know what I'm referring to. Murdering children at whatever stage is a sin in God's eyes for obvious reasons. At what point do you humanists decide a life was created, how many weeks from conception do you ignore reality? The term 'humanist' obviously being incredibly ironic in this context.

Nor do humanists tell men they can have babies, unless it be through adoption. And let's be perfectly accurate, even in a straight family adopting a child, one of those adopters is a man -- and after adoption he is called a father. And there is no scientific bar to two men adopting a baby either, your prejudices aside.

Well Humanists do support the alphabet mafia, so yes you do support everything they stand for, so tell me, where do humanists go with MAP considering their stance in support of these fanatics? because obviously this is where all that is going. How are those fluffy ideals going to stand up to that?

I have no idea what you mean by men and women "having it all."

You support the UN Agendas so you should know, the incessant materialism which tells women (in particular) that they can have it all a career be a mum, have a the flash car, big house etc etc, how's that working out for everyone?

We regularly inject poisons into humanity, that's true. Most of the time it's called chemo-therapy, and it can help rid a body of cancer. Perhaps you think that's a bad thing, so let's hope you don't become a cancer victim.

I think a 97% failure rate is pretty terrible, and if I should ever get cancer I know exactly how to treat it without submitting myself to any laughably named 'health system', but I was also referring to the scam that is quackcinnes, and the laughable 'science' around those.

And do you really think we're seeing "the wor[st] health outcomes in human history?" We replace failing organs and missing limbs. We cure illnesses that used to be death sentences. We can immunize people for life against viruses that used to kill or disable us. We are living longer than at any time in human history. We are helping the deaf to hear and the blind to see.

No illnesses are being cured by injections, the historical data clearly demonstrates higher living standards, better food and sanitisation all cured the conditions you refer to. This is completely demonstrated in the excellent tome 'Dissolving Illusions' using US and UK Governments own data. Autism rates are through the roof and exponentially increasing (spare me the laughable, we're better at diagnosis nonsense), ADHD, obesity (caused by promoting sugar and high carbohydrates and demonising saturated fats for 40 years), Alzheimers caused aluminium loaded toxic injections, statins and terrible diets, I could go on, your 'science' is bought and paid for by the biggest criminal rackets in history, big pharma, but don't take my word for it, look at the biggest corporate fines in history (A mere drop in the ocean for these criminals in reality) and take heed who's getting them. Only this week we have the announcement of an injection for obese people to lose weight which has already been demonstrated to be toxic to people who use it, and actually makes the situation long term far worse.

Humanists do not suppose we will be replaced by machines, and many are leary of the potential dangers of Artificial Intelligence. But you also include "progressivism" in your rant, which is odd, to me. You think making progress is bad? Do you see yourself with nothing but a flock of sheep to tend, and beating your laundry against the rocks in the local stream? Well, each to their own.

'Progressivism' is simply is a word designed to convince very naïve people that anything new is immediately 'good' and 'better', well some things might be, but as I've just pointed out, an awful lot isn't, demonstrably so.

 

[Heyo]

Most Baha'is are not fighting other religions, and the Baha'i Faith is not intended as such. Other religions sometimes fight Baha'is.

Try to separate two parties fighting each other, and chances are they'll both turn on you.

 

[Tony B]

You obviously haven't broken the rules, yet, otherwise you'd have been contacted by the mods, but you are close.
And that's only in part because of what you said, but also because of how you said it.
You came in here like a drunk, with an open fly, and you shat on the table. Not a great entrance.

I know very well how forums work, the established pecking order, how newbie's are treated until acceptance or rejection, it's human behaviour, nothing new under the sun. People don't like being challenged by noobs, were supposed to doff our caps and do our time, I'm just not the 'meek' Christian type, sorry. I'm used to being accused of behaviour that established members are freely doing at the same time with no comment, that's generally how it works.

I didn't know if you were a troll or if you were serious, and I'm not sure now. You've made some claims that were evidently not true and others which were not evidently true, with the confidence of a zealous believer. They were all off-topic, so I didn't address them.

Its not possible to defend oneself to opaque accusations and unsubstantiated claims I'm afraid.

I'm one of the last to back out of a heated debate, but your style isn't what we are used to here. I suggest you calm down, and try not to behave like the caricature of a "True Christian™". You make other Christians look bad.

People don't like the truth, so what's new? there are plenty of people claiming to be Christian I would not want to be associated with, the burger king crew, maybe you mean those? They make themselves look bad, they don't need my help.