My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Rhiannon]

Dear Brownie,

I got it, but Floo and Rhiannons ramblings sent me off on a little, Perfume of religion thing, seems that some early Christians had a downer on the use of scent/perfume in religious worship, far to pagan for some

Gonnagle.

I got it too. For me it was a play on words, nothing more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

Having seen some of the bad bits that are morally terrible in the bible. How did you come to that conclusion.

Is keeping slaves showing real compassion?

It's yer common-or-garden projection isn't it? Gonners is fundamentally a nice guy so he projects peace and love onto his god; TW on the other hand is a nasty piece of work, so that's the character he projects onto his god. 'twas ever thus with gods - their proponents create them according their preferences pretty much across cultures I'd have thought.

Of course that says nothing to why you need to come up with gods in the first place rather than just, say, "the universe' other than perhaps than that you need a sentient being of some sort to hold these positions.

[floo]

I think the type of god a person believes in very much reflects their personality.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

Armstrong focus's on the pivotal points in the Old Testament, namely the Prophets and the times that the Jews were having a bad time, why they were having a bad time, what was going on at that time, the story she unfolds ( through meticulous research ) could be projected to this century, the Jews got bogged down in politics, forgot about helping the poor, the needy, loving their neighbour.

And you really have a downer on Biblical slavery, get over it!

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,

Armstrong focus's on the pivotal points in the Old Testament, namely the Prophets and the times that the Jews were having a bad time, why they were having a bad time, what was going on at that time, the story she unfolds ( through meticulous research ) could be projected to this century, the Jews got bogged down in politics, forgot about helping the poor, the needy, loving their neighbour.

And you really have a downer on Biblical slavery, get over it!

Gonnagle.

You are correct is saying that I have a downer of slavery.

Don't you?

Does it no make you think, that this god of yours does NOT have a downer on slavery, and is happy for one human to OWN another, and can beat that slave so badly that it is not a problem if they die as a result a few days later.

Don't you have a downer on that.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

It's yer common-or-garden projection isn't it? Gonners is fundamentally a nice guy so he projects peace and love onto his god; TW on the other hand is a nasty piece of work, so that's the character he projects onto his god. 'twas ever thus with gods - their proponents create them according their preferences pretty much across cultures I'd have thought.

And that is a very feasible hypothesis, if I thought for one moment my God was a Floo or TW God then I would be asking Susan for a NSS badge, but no, reading Armstrong, who covers all religions, researched them meticulously, almost all religions, right from their very start, preached compassion, empathy, Love thy Neighbour, helping the poor, so pretty much across cultures, all cultures, they all had that theme running through them, no difference, compassion, empathy, Love Thy Neighbour, helping the poor runs through them all.

And me as a Christian, when I read the Gospels, they all shine through, but don't just take my word for it, ask a follower of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucius, Sikhism, they will all tell you that these qualities are at the heart of their religion, why is that? why do all religions hold these things in such high esteem? I know why, you might have a scientific answer, but it is still God.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

Yes I have a downer on modern day slavery, but you want me to judge someone who lived thousands of years ago, God did not condone slavery, man did.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,

Yes I have a downer on modern day slavery, but you want me to judge someone who lived thousands of years ago, God did not condone slavery, man did.

Gonnagle.

NO that is NOT correct.

Your god condones slavery in the bible. Have you read it?

[jjohnjil]

Dear Berational,

Yes I have a downer on modern day slavery, but you want me to judge someone who lived thousands of years ago, God did not condone slavery, man did.

Gonnagle.

That's exactly how I see it, Gonners.  It was humans who wrote all those stories and laid down all the stupid rules in the Bible, they each portrayed their particular kind of deity to reflect their own personality. Organised religion is to blame for the Biblical stories about slavery and all the nasty behaviour that Floo talks about, not belief in a god.

The need that so many of our fellow humans have for a spiritual father figure is universal.  You find it in every continent - and even in Brazilian jungles where no theist has ever set foot.  I think it's a throw back to our early childhood, good or bad, where our parents and carers were, to us, all powerful and yet loving (or in some cases, hating) and that stays with all of us to a greater or lesser extent.

So to berate a Christian for the bad things in the Bible is very wrong. If they relish the bad, as some do, then we should condemn them ... but those that only look for the good things - cherry pick, if you like -  should be respected for their humanity, as I do you and Brownie, Gonners.   

[BeRational]

That's exactly how I see it, Gonners.  It was humans who wrote all those stories and laid down all the stupid rules in the Bible, they each portrayed their particular kind of deity to reflect their own personality. Organised religion is to blame for the Biblical stories about slavery and all the nasty behaviour that Floo talks about, not belief in a god.

The need that so many of our fellow humans have for a spiritual father figure is universal.  You find it in every continent - and even in Brazilian jungles where no theist has ever set foot.  I think it's a throw back to our early childhood, good or bad, where our parents and carers were, to us, all powerful and yet loving (or in some cases, hating) and that stays with all of us to a greater or lesser extent.

So to berate a Christian for the bad things in the Bible is very wrong. If they relish the bad, as some do, then we should condemn them ... but those that only look for the good things - cherry pick, if you like -  should be respected for their humanity, as I do you and Brownie, Gonners.

So you think the bible has nothing to do with a god, and is just humans.

I agree.

[Brownie]

I think the type of god a person believes in very much reflects their personality.

What a thought  .  My God must have headaches, be insomniac, nervous, forget which day of the week it is and lose his glasses regularly.  Nice with it of course.

Now IF you believed in God, what would he/she be like?

jjjohnjil: The need that so many of our fellow humans have for a spiritual father figure is universal.  You find it in every continent - and even in Brazilian jungles where no theist has ever set foot.  I think it's a throw back to our early childhood, good or bad, where our parents and carers were, to us, all powerful and yet loving (or in some cases, hating) and that stays with all of us to a greater or lesser extent.

That is so very true and is something I often ponder, alongside the sense that ''grownups are always right''; even if a lot of the 'grown ups'  were awful, that idea stays in many peoples's subconscious well into adulthood.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

And that is a very feasible hypothesis, if I thought for one moment my God was a Floo or TW God then I would be asking Susan for a NSS badge, but no, reading Armstrong, who covers all religions, researched them meticulously, almost all religions, right from their very start, preached compassion, empathy, Love thy Neighbour, helping the poor, so pretty much across cultures, all cultures, they all had that theme running through them, no difference, compassion, empathy, Love Thy Neighbour, helping the poor runs through them all.

I haven't read KA but I've heard her on the radio a few times - seems very nice, but every time I find I wan't to throw a flowerpot at the damn thing because she seems to me to make such logical mis-steps and unwarranted claims. Anyways...

...yup, no doubt lots of religions do include these things (though I suspect, like Christianity, they contain darker stuff too about, for example, what'll happen to you if you break the rules or pick the wrong god). Does that mean that they've all identified a benign god (or gods) though, or does it merely reflect their mapping of human characteristics of solidarity, co-operation etc onto whichever gods they've come up with? "Here's behaviour that works and we want to encourage, so let's make it our god's plan too" kind of thing - which after all requires fewer assumptions than the actual god hypothesis.     

And me as a Christian, when I read the Gospels, they all shine through, but don't just take my word for it, ask a follower of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucius, Sikhism, they will all tell you that these qualities are at the heart of their religion, why is that? why do all religions hold these things in such high esteem? I know why, you might have a scientific answer, but it is still God.

I don't know about "scientific" - anthropological perhaps though: tribes that flourish work together for common success; those behaviours become thereby morally good; gods are arbiters of moral good; therefore that's what gods want - a virtuous circle provided you ignore the nasty stuff that' also attributed to these gods.

[jjohnjil]

So you think the bible has nothing to do with a god, and is just humans.

I agree.

 
Of course it's just humans.  Look at the great medieval cathedrals and bishops palaces, those professed as being in communication with God lived the life of Riley while the peasants scraped along in their hovels!

Religion is all about power, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any god.  It merely exploits the natural feelings of the masses that 'something up there' controls everything. 

Decent Christians read the Bible for the stuff that inspires them and comforts them.  The nastier type look for anything that threatens everyone except themselves - Kidding themselves they are fireproof, for some arrogantly ridiculous reason.

[Rhiannon]

BR,

It's yer common-or-garden projection isn't it? Gonners is fundamentally a nice guy so he projects peace and love onto his god; TW on the other hand is a nasty piece of work, so that's the character he projects onto his god. 'twas ever thus with gods - their proponents create them according their preferences pretty much across cultures I'd have thought.

Of course that says nothing to why you need to come up with gods in the first place rather than just, say, "the universe' other than perhaps than that you need a sentient being of some sort to hold these positions.

I think people feel something - awe, wonder, even something akin to love - and call it 'God'. That's why.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Don't know anything about Mis steps or unwarranted claims but her CV is impeccable, this why the UN, UNICEF, Prime Ministers, world leaders turn to her for advice on religious matters, it is why high profile atheists shy away from debating with her, Dawkins being one who refused her offer.

There is no woo in her writing, she cites all the greats in history to make her point, Aristotle, Plato, Jung, Freud, Confucius, Budda, she angers Christians with thoughts like, The Road to Damascus could just have been  spiritual experience, God is a kind of after thought, she delve more into the human psyche, her books are well worth a read.

Gonnagle.

[Sassy]

Likewise, one could say - have you tried the Muslim way ?  if you have never tried it you cannot make that statement

Not at all.... Had you been educated in religion there is no way of proving that religion to ourselves or others.
So the Muslim way has nothing to try that would tell you as Christ, whether it is true or not. A relatively new religion by all accounts. God said he would make the descendants of  Ishmael a mighty nation not a new religion.

So far Mahomet claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael but there has not been any proof of such.

[torridon]

Not at all.... Had you been educated in religion there is no way of proving that religion to ourselves or others.
So the Muslim way has nothing to try that would tell you as Christ, whether it is true or not. A relatively new religion by all accounts. God said he would make the descendants of  Ishmael a mighty nation not a new religion.

So far Mahomet claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael but there has not been any proof of such.

I haven't 'tried' Islam either, I am merely pointing up that the claims you make about 'trying' christianity sound similar to the claims made by muslims; I often hear it said that its truth is revealed through practice - daily prayers, prostrations, recitations of Qur'an, going on haaj, it is by making these things part of the ongoing fabric of your life that one can come to know the mind of god.  Neither faith- christianity or islam - is really about empirical enquiry or epistemic truth, they are really more about immersion in a god centered way of life that works for individuals within their broader social and cultural context.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am about halfway through 'sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. I am not keen on the rather abrasive way it is written, but as he points out human civilisation, particularly in very large groups, adheres because of humanly created myths, and of what is an imagined order, and most definitely not because of
any god or something.

Gonnagle - I think it was you who recommended this a while ago?

He's the guy who says there will be billions of humans who are ''useless''. That's secular thinking for you.

[Shaker]

He's the guy who says there will be billions of humans who are ''useless''. That's secular thinking for you.

Where's the evidence for this assertion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where's the evidence for this assertion?

It's his book. He says that the main secular indices, economic prospects, welfare spend, employability, contribution to society is what renders these billions ''useless.''

SusanDoris seems to be reviewing the book, let's see what she says.

[Shaker]

It's his book.

Not good enough. Amazon tells me that it's a book of 512 pages - simply waving your hands airily and saying "It's in his book" doesn't cut it. What's the exact quote wherein he says, as you have claimed, there will be billions of humans who are useless? Where in his book does he say what you think he has said? Provide the quote, with particular reference to the word 'useless.'

SusanDoris seems to be reviewing the book, let's see what she says.

Indeed. I'm eagerly awaiting SD's report to see if it tallies with what you, for goodness only knows what reason, imagine he's said.

I won't be putting money on it, though.

[ekim]

I think people feel something - awe, wonder, even something akin to love - and call it 'God'. That's why.

The idea of 'God' might have started the other way round.  What is lacking in a person's life he might seek to invoke.  If it's love then God is Love, if it's truth then God is Truth, if it's power then God is Power, if it's peace then God is Peace, if it's luck then a God of Fortune and so on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Don't know anything about Mis steps or unwarranted claims but her CV is impeccable, this why the UN, UNICEF, Prime Ministers, world leaders turn to her for advice on religious matters...

So was Billy Graham.

...,it is why high profile atheists shy away from debating with her, Dawkins being one who refused her offer.

Are you sure about that? RD has debated theists widely, and he makes the point that in general those who ask for the debate will gain a lot more from the publicity than he will gain from the argument. I suspect that KA would at least observe the rules of debate, but I don't know whether or why they haven't engaged. 

There is no woo in her writing, she cites all the greats in history to make her point, Aristotle, Plato, Jung, Freud, Confucius, Budda, she angers Christians with thoughts like, The Road to Damascus could just have been  spiritual experience, God is a kind of after thought, she delve more into the human psyche, her books are well worth a read.

It'd be unfair to comment because I haven't read her - I'll try to look some out though. As I said, when I've heard her though while I didn't doubt her scholarship I remember thinking that her underlying assumptions were suspect. Again I'd have to be more specific rather than just throw out citation-free accusations and walk away Trollboy style, but it'll take me a while. Desert Island Discs maybe?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Are you sure about that? RD has debated theists widely, and he makes the point that in general those who ask for the debate will gain a lot more from the publicity than he will gain from the argument. I suspect that KA would at least observe the rules of debate, but I don't know whether or why they haven't engaged. 

Very sure, and I can sympathise with Dawkins on the why he doesn't want to debate with Armstrong, the amount of times I have posted on here, thinking to myself, I am wonderful, this post of mine is the bee's knee's and then some highly intelligent, well educated bloody know it all comes along and leaves me licking my wounds This is Armstrong, she knows her subject inside out, back to front and she does it from a stand point of someone who you can't pin down as a believer or non believer.

If you do want to dip your toes into her writing I would suggest "A Short History of Myth" or "In The Beginning" both are small books which you can read in an afternoon, In The Beginning is a cracker, Noah, a totally dysfunctional character who in the end takes to the drink, Gods choice of men has to be questioned

Gonnagle.

[SusanDoris]

I do not recall having so far in 'sapiens' heard the idea that billions will be useless!! As it's an audio book, it is difficult to track back and find particular paragraphs etc, but from now on I will pay attention for that. His slightly abrasive, a bit chip-on-shoulder style continues but the content is well worth listening to.
As far as KA is concerned, I gave up reading her work after two or three books, because her, presumably, conscious effort to remain impartial, even neutral, on the subject of her own belief was irritating to say the least. In a way, her determination not to get off the fence was a tad patronising. I certainly would not bother to have any of her work as a talking book nowadays.