01 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy point is not about a particular person/country that would go to war with another country. Of course humans have a very strange habit of destroying themselves. We've seen that happening since who knows when! What I'm talking about is the number of people who would kill another FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR RELIGION. I don't believe that this president of the richest country who's 'killing' others (directly or indirectly) claims that he's doing it for his religion. He might say he's doing it as a world policeman (although perhaps it has a lot to do with his country's economic interest or whatever). He might say that he's attacking another country as a pre-emptive action in defense of his country, I don't know. But who are those people who claim that they're carrying out aggression for the sake of their religion?
Yes, but when one of them is the president of the world's richest country...
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou have told me that man's innate tendency to see patterns even where they do not exist is the factor that causes him to create religions.
Pattern recognition in humans.
To understand this, it is good to be able to understand human evolution.
Humans have evolved powerful mechanisms to understand sometimes complicated patterns. A simple example would be thus. Imagine a caveman who comes across two fruit trees. One bears many more flowers than the other. Later in the season, our bl ...[text shortened]... eason we have developed statistics for scientific usage, for example.
Part 2 to follow.
To have this opinion you yourself must recognize patterns in human behavior. You develop a concept because of perceived patterns in human behavior as you have described to me.
Is this also a religious tendency within you?
And if man sees patterns sometimes where they do not exist is it possible that you also are seeing a pattern where none exists?
01 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzPeople like to know why things happen, and where they came from.
Tool for the control of people.
People evolved to live in small groups, pretty much everyone in these groups knew each other, and everyone had a very clear idea of each persons role in society. Some people are stronger in these societies, and they normally command the food supply, especially surplusses, and perhaps also breeding rights. We certai ly a rebellion against the freedom that religion has seeked to repress for thousands of years.
Why is there this interest for people to know why things happen and where they came from?
Why do they care?
As language developed, it was useful for the chiefs in society to develop gods. These could be used to explain why the world is the way it is, and also act as a source for their power, as the power of the group started to eclipse the power of the rulers.
So are you saying all concepts about diety were developed by chiefs?
Are you saying we can trace the creation of all ideas about God to chiefs and community leaders? That doesn't sound too consistent with history.
What kind of chiefs were Peter and John the fishermen from Galilee?
Was tribal chiefs were associated with the creation of Buddhism or Hinduism? I am talking about the initial creation not the latter adoption of those with some community leadership position.
Which one of the twelve apostles of Christ was a chief of a community?
If we look at primitive societies, even today, we see primative Gods, with limited power, but as we see development, so too do we see increasingly powerful Gods. An omniscient, omnipotent God is simply the extreme incantation of this trend.
The family of Abraham with his wife and children and servants were not a great powerful society. Yet Yahweh was the Creator of the whole world. "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" said Abraham.
How come a concept of an omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh developed from a nomadic clan of relatively few people as compared to say the Egyptian empire?
You mention God's wrath. Why do you single out only that attribute of God?
Isn't there also ample mention of other attributes of God in the Bible such as His faithfulness, His mercy, His love, His kindness?
Why do you hone in only on the attribute of God's wrath?
When you read the Bible is that the only attribute of God that you notice?
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by jaywill"To have this opinion you yourself must recognize patterns in human behavior. You develop a concept because of perceived patterns in human behavior as you have described to me.
You have told me that man's innate tendency to see patterns even where they do not exist is the factor that causes him to create religions.
To have this opinion you yourself must recognize patterns in human behavior. You develop a concept because of perceived patterns in human behavior as you have described to me.
Is this also a religious tendency wi ...[text shortened]... es where they do not exist is it possible that you also are seeing a pattern where none exists?
Is this also a religious tendency within you?"
No. You are confusing cause and effect here. The ability to recognise patterns was a necessary precursor to religion, but religion per se did not necessarily need to evolve from that. Organised religion is the simple exploitation of one group of people by another. Ask yourself this, how many ministers are required to supplement their income by, say, working in a bar? Who do you think is richer, you or the Pope? Who do you think has more political influence?
"And if man sees patterns sometimes where they do not exist is it possible that you also are seeing a pattern where none exists?"
Indeed. Unfortunately, organised religion is only too common though.
I have talked about the evolution of man's psychology. Most of this is very well documented. For an excellent synopsis of the development of human society see Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs & Steel".
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by jaywill"Why is there this interest for people to know why things happen and where they came from?
[b] People like to know why things happen, and where they came from.
Why is there this interest for people to know why things happen and where they came from?
Why do they care?
As language developed, it was useful for the chiefs in society to develop gods. These could be used to explain why the world is the way it is, and also ...[text shortened]... d's wrath?
When you read the Bible is that the only attribute of God that you notice?
Why do they care?"
Knowledge is power. You don't even need to know that for it to be true. Natural selection can differentiate between the knowledgeable and the less knowledgeable. This is the entire basis of military reconisance.
"Are you saying we can trace the creation of all ideas about God to chiefs and community leaders? That doesn't sound too consistent with history.
What kind of chiefs were Peter and John the fishermen from Galilee?"
They were very, very late ones. You seem to wish to forget that whilst Jesus the Jew may have been the founder of Christianity, the Christian God had been around long before that. Ever heard of the Old Testament? The concept of gods would have evolved over time, and yes, those gods were controlled through chiefs, and their representatives, priests.
"Was tribal chiefs were associated with the creation of Buddhism or Hinduism? I am talking about the initial creation not the latter adoption of those with some community leadership position."
The first Buddha, Siddhãrtha Gautama, was born a prince.
Hinduism seems to be a weird old religion new religion hybrid, with multiple gods, all of which are aspects of a single god. Shintoism, the Japanese national religion, represents a truely polytheistic religion, on the other hand.
"How come a concept of an omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh developed from a nomadic clan of relatively few people as compared to say the Egyptian empire?"
The Egyptians had a largely complete theological outlook. For a major shift, such as from polytheism to monotheism, normally requires a bit of strife. Evolutionary speciation does not happen under stable, uniform conditions.
"You mention God's wrath. Why do you single out only that attribute of God?"
It's his main defining characteristic in the OT. The NT was god being rebranded in a new "pollitically correct" form.
"Isn't there also ample mention of other attributes of God in the Bible such as His faithfulness, His mercy, His love, His kindness?"
Yes. In the NT. "Huggy" God.
"When you read the Bible is that the only attribute of God that you notice?"
I only read good fiction.
01 Sep 06
5 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz---------------------------------------
[b]"Why is there this interest for people to know why things happen and where they came from?
Why do they care?"
"Are you saying we can trace the creation of all ideas about God to chiefs and community leaders? That doesn't sound too consistent with history.
What kind of chiefs were Peter and John the fishermen from Galilee?"
The
"When you read the Bible is that the only attribute of God that you notice?"
"Knowledge is power. You don't even need to know that for it to be true. Natural selection can differentiate between the knowledgeable and the less knowledgeable. This is the entire basis of military reconisance."
------------------------------------
If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display about this subject also your quest for power over other people?
Did you gain this knowledge for the purpose of having power to control us?
Concerning the first disciples of Jesus you write:
------------------------------------
"They were very, very late ones. You seem to wish to forget that whilst Jesus the Jew may have been the founder of Christianity, the Christian God had been around long before that. Ever heard of the Old Testament? "
------------------------------------
Your facts are wrong. Peter and John were early founders of the Christian faith and not late founders.
The "new covenant" was established by Christ. Of course God has been around since eternity. But the new covenant, though based upon the old covenant of the Judaism, was established shortly before Christ's death at His last supper. There Jesus formerly initiated what the major contents of the new covenant would be.
The three years of ministry led up to this moment. But there is no accuracy to your suggestion that the twelve disciples were not the original witnesses and communicators of the New Testament.
-------------------------------------
"The first Buddha, Siddhãrtha Gautama, was born a prince."
-------------------------------------
Okay. He would qualify to fit your theory that community chiefs are the major establishers of religions.
----------------------------------------
"Hinduism seems to be a weird old religion new religion hybrid, with multiple gods, all of which are aspects of a single god. Shintoism, the Japanese national religion, represents a truely polytheistic religion, on the other hand."
----------------------------------------
They are major world religions. But I don't see you confirm or deny that tribal chiefs were their creators. So I see one bad example, one good example, and two neutral to poor examples.
------------------------------------
"I only read good fiction."
------------------------------------
I didn't ask you what kind of fiction you read. I asked if when you read the Bible do you only notice the wrath of God.
And if your answer means that you don't bother reading the Bible then you might stop fancying yourself as an expert on its content and formation as the basis of a religion.
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by jaywill"If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display about this subject also your quest for power over other people?"
---------------------------------------
[b]"Knowledge is power. You don't even need to know that for it to be true. Natural selection can differentiate between the knowledgeable and the less knowledgeable. This is the entire basis of military reconisance."
------------------------------------
If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display a ...[text shortened]... yourself as an expert on its content and formation as the basis of a religion.[/b]
I learn and read for my own benefit. If you see me being able to do the work I love as having some sort of dominion over others, so be it. I do teach at university, although I do not derive some sick, narsacistic pleasure from it, although I know some who do.
"Your facts are wrong. Peter and John were early founders of the Christian faith and not late founders."
Perhaps, but the God was very extant at the time. They DID NOT create the God, they merely started a cult.
"But I don't see you confirm or deny that tribal chiefs were their creators. So I see one bad example, one good example, and two neutral to poor examples."
Of course, my point is that Hinduism is probably a fusion of many proto-religions. Each of these would have had a tribal origin, although I'm not such a good scholar to have ever researched this. To be honest, I'm not too bothered to do it either.
"I didn't ask you what kind of fiction you read. I asked if when you read the Bible do you only notice the wrath of God.
And if your answer means that you don't bother reading the Bible then you might stop fancying yourself as an expert on its content and formation as the basis of a religion."
And I explained this to you. The OT is the important part for understanding the bible. Do you see no difference between the old and new testaments? Does the god not seem to have underwent a transformation? Gone is the turning people into pillars of salt, and killing the firstborn, and in is love and forgiveness. Christ was crucified. Did god lay Rome assunder? No. Would the OT God have done so? Almost certainly.
So, I don't put too much faith in the NT as a description of god. The OT is where it's at.
And yes, I have read the bible. I'll never do it again though.
01 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThere is a point I'd like to readdress.
---------------------------------------
[b]"Knowledge is power. You don't even need to know that for it to be true. Natural selection can differentiate between the knowledgeable and the less knowledgeable. This is the entire basis of military reconisance."
------------------------------------
If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display a yourself as an expert on its content and formation as the basis of a religion.[/b]
"If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display about this subject also your quest for power over other people?
Did you gain this knowledge for the purpose of having power to control us?"
Why do you bring up people? I didn't. I said "knowledge is power". That power can manifest in many ways. It can be power over your environment, such as the knowledge of how to make fire, or to build shelter. It could be power over other individuals, as you point out. it could be power to have the future you choose, rather than having someone else choose it. This is the power I chose. I grew up in a poor farming family in Scotland. I now work as a Scientist in New Zealand. I'm 26, I own my own 4x4 truck, my own laptop I have BSc and PhD degrees. I went to university at age 17 with a CD player and my clothes. I did the rest myself. I chose knowledge, that's my escape from being poor. Knowledge is power, but that doesn't mean that knowledge corrupts - that's the story the church would have you believe though.
03 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWow, Scot, I'm quite amazed at your achievements at such an early age! Well done, my friend. I have some friends who're from New Zealand. From what I heard so far, the Kiwis in general are lazy bums. I have never had the opportunity to actually find out if this was true. There is one person who I know personally who grew up on there, and I have the impression that there is a lot of truth in what I've heard to far. If indeed it is true, then you must be the kings amongst them all!
There is a point I'd like to readdress.
"If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display about this subject also your quest for power over other people?
Did you gain this knowledge for the purpose of having power to control us?"
Why do you bring up people? I didn't. I said "knowledge is power". That power can manifest in many ways. It ...[text shortened]... n that knowledge corrupts - that's the story the church would have you believe though.
03 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do not know what church preaches knowledge corrupts. The knowledge
There is a point I'd like to readdress.
"If knowledge is power is the knowledge you display about this subject also your quest for power over other people?
Did you gain this knowledge for the purpose of having power to control us?"
Why do you bring up people? I didn't. I said "knowledge is power". That power can manifest in many ways. It n that knowledge corrupts - that's the story the church would have you believe though.
of good and evil and the choice to ignore God's warnings is not an
indictments against 'knowledge' there isn’t anything anywhere in
scripture that suggests that. Evil is a corrupting influence, and had
it been kept from Adam and Eve things would be different now. So
knowledge itself isn’t something to be shunned, what we want to learn
about may be something we should think carefully about is another
thing altogether.
Kelly
03 Sep 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThe knowledge of the taste of an apple was obviously enough to condemn all mankind. The knowledge of right and wrong, without that knowledge Eve could not have known there would be any repercussions for eating the apple, nor that they would be bad, since bad didn't exist in her world.
I do not know what church preaches knowledge corrupts. The knowledge
of good and evil and the choice to ignore God's warnings is not an
indictments against 'knowledge' there isn’t anything anywhere in
scripture that suggests that. Evil is a corrupting influence, and had
it been kept from Adam and Eve things would be different now. So
knowledge itself i ...[text shortened]...
about may be something we should think carefully about is another
thing altogether.
Kelly
Bruno was killed, and Galileo put under house arrest, for attempting to spread knowledge about the way the universe is ordered.
The church has tried to crush the teaching of Evolutionary Theory, over the last 160 years.
The church has tried repeatedly to crush any knowledge that might threaten its own existance. If the church had its way you'd all be reduced to slithering around on you bellies and asking permission to go pee-pee.
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou seem to make the connection that if some denomination does
The knowledge of the taste of an apple was obviously enough to condemn all mankind. The knowledge of right and wrong, without that knowledge Eve could not have known there would be any repercussions for eating the apple, nor that they would be bad, since bad didn't exist in her world.
Bruno was killed, and Galileo put under house arrest, for attempt ...[text shortened]... you'd all be reduced to slithering around on you bellies and asking permission to go pee-pee.
something, it is God's church acting. I disagree, I don't care what
the Catholic church has done, it has nothing to do with God church
outside of there are members within it that belong to God. There
wasn’t an apple, and it wasn’t right and wrong, but good and evil,
they were warned.
Kelly
Gen 2: 16-17
And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree
of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of
it -- dying thou dost die.'
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by KellyJayBut they had no knowledge of right or wrong. There is no way they could have known what the threat meant. Nothing could be considered wrong or not by either adam or eve, since they didn't know what it means. I might as well say "KellyJay is a pojrondfnbvj". Got it? What? You don't know what a pojrondfnbvj is? Are you stupid? It's on that level.
You seem to make the connection that if some denomination does
something, it is God's church acting. I disagree, I don't care what
the Catholic church has done, it has nothing to do with God church
outside of there are members within it that belong to God. There
wasn’t an apple, and it wasn’t right and wrong, but good and evil,
they were warned.
Kelly ...[text shortened]... evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of
it -- dying thou dost die.'
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThey did not have to know what evil was to avoid it, what they did know
But they had no knowledge of right or wrong. There is no way they could have known what the threat meant. [b]Nothing could be considered wrong or not by either adam or eve, since they didn't know what it means. I might as well say "KellyJay is a pojrondfnbvj". Got it? What? You don't know what a pojrondfnbvj is? Are you stupid? It's on that level.[/b]
was that they were to avoid eating from that one tree, and only that
one tree at that time. What went beyond that wasn't anything they
had to deal with until they knowingly disobeyed God's one command
to not do something.
Kelly
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYes they did. Of course they did. If they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, then ANY action could not be considered right or wrong. God saying "don't do it" just wouldn't make sense, since the very concept of "don't do it" requires a value judgement. When all actions are equal, the question of choice is irrelevant.
They did not have to know what evil was to avoid it, what they did know
was that they were to avoid eating from that one tree, and only that
one tree at that time. What went beyond that wasn't anything they
had to deal with until they knowingly disobeyed God's one command
to not do something.
Kelly