15 Sep 07
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyFor something non-basic to be "credible" as in worthy of being believed, it needs to have sufficient evidentiary weight or support behind it. To first order, that's about it.
I think for a religion to be credible, it must have certain elements.
1. A religion in question must show where we came from and where we have been and where we are going in relation to God. For example, it must show how we were created/evolved, how God has interacted with mankind throughout time, and where God has brought us today, and where we are go od of the Bible seems to dominate the stage of the major world religions of today. Go figure?
I have a problem, whodey, with your -- particularly your -- going around telling others what constitutes credibility. Seriously, how many times do I have to remind you of the following point: your primary noetic interest lies not in the production of true beliefs, remember? You're concerned first with beliefs that you feel make you happy, remember? Remember?? Not surprisingly, then, your criterial elements for credibility really have nothing to do with credibility properly speaking (oh, sure, you throw in the token 'truth' bit in there, but you merely unjustifiably presuppose truths of your religion -- I mean, your criterial elements for 'credibility' presuppose the existence of God, for Chrissakes). Your elements don't have anything to do with credibility: primarily they have to do with providing you ersatz "answers" to tough questions; with bestowing upon you and the rest of humanity a special place as the darlings of the cosmic order; with providing some sort of fuzzy victory over the prospects of death; etc. So, not surprisingly, what you tote around as criterial considerations for credibility really just concern at bottom the matter of consolation.
Leaving 'credibility' aside, as a list of considerations related to religious motivations, it's not terrible. But for one, I wouldn't presuppose the existence of 'God' as criterial. It seems "religions" are probably more, or almost as, united in the prospects of "life after death" (on some level) than in the existence of some divine agent. And "Buddism"?
15 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHowever, it is my understanding that it is widely held that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC and not the 6th century as you attest.
This is useful and I plan on reading Daniel closely at my earliest opportunity. However, it is my understanding that it is widely held that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC and not the 6th century as you attest.
I must admit to not being nearly conversant enough to challenge the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. I y the way, I would much rather read your own thoughts than your Ivanhoesque cut and paste jobs.
The evidence supporting Daniel's authorship is far more convincing to me than the contrary argument. According to the book of Daniel itself the book is written by Daniel, e.g., Daniel chapter 8 begins with, "I Daniel..." (otherwise, the use of third person narrative is attributed to that being the customary style of ancient authors). Also, Jesus Himself had referred specifically to Daniel as the one who foretold the "abomination of desolation", among other prophecies - directly attesting to their genuineness.
If the book of Daniel were originally written in the second century, this would be at odds with the central them of the book itself, i.e., that God, the God of Israel, is a God of prophecy. Were we to place original authorship later, after all the events foretold had already passed, then the Book of Daniel would be discredited. However, a second century authorship is far from tenable, which is why the book of Daniel remains in the canon of authentically Spirit-inspired books.
Furthermore, the Israelites have a history of dealing with false and true prophets. If Daniel were a false prophet, or if the author of Daniel were a false prophet, then no doubt the book would not have survived.
"My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of the house of Israel" (Ezekiel 13:9).
The book of Daniel existed in Hebrew prior to the rise of the Greeks, and was translated into Greek in 270 B.C.
By the way, I would much rather read your own thoughts than your Ivanhoesque cut and paste jobs.
I usually don't cut and paste much, but I'm not a certified bible scholar, so in this instance I don't have much choice.
16 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyTo say that there are no pre-religious set of truths upon which a religion is based would be to imply that religions at large are formed in a vacuum. Or you could say that such religions are based upon purely made up facts. However, how would one then relate to such a religion? What would be its purpose? Religions are formed via perceived truths about the world at large and how one interacts with it.
To say that there are no pre-religious set of truths upon which a religion is based would be to imply that religions at large are formed in a vacuum. Or you could say that such religions are based upon purely made up facts. However, how would one then relate to such a religion? What would be its purpose? Religions are formed via percieved truths about the world at large and how one interacts with it.
Which means no more and no less than that some people ascribe a religious interpretation, and some don’t.
I think perhaps I misread your intention: I think your criteria were aimed only at cases where one has already made such an ascription.
Very interesting. Ok, scrap the Far Eastern religions as being religions. I guess all the major religions of the world are then left with are religions based upon the God of the Bible. Is that what you are implying?
Actually, that is what I thought you were implying, since your opening criterion for a credible religion had to do with our relationship to God. Not, perhaps, strictly the God of the Bible, but a theistic being in any event.
16 Sep 07
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't recall saying that my faith is based soley on how it makes me feel although how it makes one feel can also be attributed as an evidence for what you believe. In fact, emotions can be decieving to say the least. I have stated many time that my faith is not baseless in terms of evidence and I do not believe that beliefs in general are baseless in terms of evidence, no matter what your beliefs may be. Granted, the perceptions of certain evidences that hold up a particular belief may be askew but that does not mean that you lack the perception of evidences. For example, Epi gave a whole slew of evidences for his faith just as I am sure you have many evidences for your lack of belief as well. In this regard, faith in God is not akin to believing in the FSM.
For something non-basic to be "credible" as in worthy of being believed, it needs to have sufficient evidentiary weight or support behind it. To first order, that's about it.
I have a problem, whodey, with your -- particularly your -- going around telling others what constitutes credibility. Seriously, how many times do I have to remind you of n some level) than in the existence of some divine agent. And "Buddism"?
Having said that, an evidence based faith is a whole different animal than a proof based faith. I have no proof, rather, I only have evidences. If you think about it, if it is a proof based faith then why would we require faith? Also, if you knew that what you believed was a lie based upon the percieved evidences that fly in the face of your faith, would you really have faith in what you proported to believe?
16 Sep 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateThis pretty much did it for me.
Humanity has been around for a million+ years (slighty more than the 6000 the bible implies). Just to be fair, let's say it's 50,000 years of humanity plodding around the Earth. As a conservative estimate, let's say that humanity has devloped at least 15,000 Gods over our time on Earth. With this comes elaborate rituals, sacrifices, good, evil, dem ...[text shortened]... f humanities creative psyche? Why is Christianity any more valid than Hinduism for example?
http://tinyurl.com/25k7yr
16 Sep 07
Originally posted by NordlysIt does not offend me. Baha'i Faith is the correct name, and Baha'ism is not. I am however not one to get hung up on names. The essence is far more important.
Sorry if I used a wrong word. Do Baha'i consider it offensive to call their faith "Baha'ism", and if so, why?
16 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWhat makes Christianity's version of Spiritual Truth any more accurate than the other dubious invetions of humanities creative psyche? Why is Christianity any more valid than Hinduism for example? HECATE
Humanity has been around for a million+ years (slighty more than the 6000 the bible implies). Just to be fair, let's say it's 50,000 years of humanity plodding around the Earth. As a conservative estimate, let's say that humanity has devloped at least 15,000 Gods over our time on Earth. With this comes elaborate rituals, sacrifices, good, evil, dem f humanities creative psyche? Why is Christianity any more valid than Hinduism for example?
What one should be looking for is a religion that stresses love above all other values and rates this as the supreme quality of God and secondly one should be looking for something that God is doing. If God exists (and let's face it only a God of Love is worth knowing anyway) then one would expect a God to do something to communicate himself to us. This is what makes the Christian faith different. All other religions are the story of man's attempt to reach God and build a path to God . Christianity is the story of God's attempt to reach man and build a path to man. Christianity is "upside down".
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't agree with your statement, "All other religions are the story of man's attempt to reach God and build a path to God." I don't see how you can say this, many other religions have accounts of God(s) interacting with humanity. Meddling, fornication, slaughter and love, all good stuff and all part of humanities varied religious inventions. Take ancient Greek religions for example, Zeus and his brethren influenced every aspect of humanities existance.
What one should be looking for is a religion that stresses love above all other values and rates this as the supreme quality of God and secondly one should be looking for something that God is doing. If God exists (and let's face it only a God of Love is worth knowing anyway) then one would expect a God to do something to communicate himself to us. Thi ...[text shortened]... story of God's attempt to reach man and build a path to man. Christianity is "upside down".
Just to be argumentative, why must love be a central concept when choosing a religion? Why not inner peace, afterall, your own spirit and soul is the only thing you have complete control over? Don't you think that man's quest for spiritual truth should start within? A true examination of what fulfills us, makes us happy, and brings us peace?
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterreq'd!!
What makes Christianity's version of Spiritual Truth any more accurate than the other dubious invetions of humanities creative psyche? Why is Christianity any more valid than Hinduism for example? HECATE
What one should be looking for is a religion that stresses love above all other values and rates this as the supreme quality of God and secondly ...[text shortened]... tory of God's attempt to reach man and build a path to man. Christianity is "upside down".
17 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWhat other religion states that God himself came down in human form and then became a sevant to mankind all the way to his death as a sacrificial lamb to deliver us from what ailes us which is sin and death? As Christ once said, no one has greater love for his friends than to lay down his life for his friends.
[b]I don't agree with your statement, "All other religions are the story of man's attempt to reach God and build a path to God." I don't see how you can say this, many other religions have accounts of God(s) interacting with humanity.
17 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAnd did these gods require those influenced to give the "OK"? Did these gods require faith to be exhibited in them before working or meddling in their lives? In other words, was free will required for God to work in their lives? It seems to me that the God of the Bible is much more gentlmenly. Also, compare the meddling of Zeus and his brethren to that of Christ. Who is the better God/man?
Take ancient Greek religions for example, Zeus and his brethren influenced every aspect of humanities existance.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateThink man!! What are you without love? As the "Doobie Brothers" once sang, "where would you be without love now?"
Just to be argumentative, why must love be a central concept when choosing a religion? Why not inner peace, afterall, your own spirit and soul is the only thing you have complete control over? Don't you think that man's quest for spiritual truth should start within? A true examination of what fulfills us, makes us happy, and brings us peace?[/b]
Also, how is it that you might have peace without love? Any examples? If no one loved you and you had no one to love how much peace would you have? In answering this question please be as honest with yourself as possible.
In addition, why would you have a quest for something that you already have? In other words, if the answers lie within, where are the hiding? Why are they hiding? Also, if love is really the key as we suggest it is, who are you loving other than yourself if you are looking within? It sounds awefully lonely man.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI noticed that both you and whodey are not really interested in the truth but more in whether you would enjoy following a religion. Both of you made statements to the effect that if you did not like the God described by the religion then you would not accept the religion as fact and that you would only accept a religion in which the God in question fit the description you are looking for - a God of love for example.
....and let's face it only a God of Love is worth knowing anyway.....
You are essentially dictating to God what he must be and creating facts from desire.