• If God is omniscient, does that mean that he knows what he will do in the future at all times?

    Best answer: In Mere Christianity, the late C S Lewis explains his understanding that we experience time moment by moment, but that to God past, present and future are all one, so He experiences all times at once. Lewis claims that his view is based on Theology; it's amazing the lengths that theologians went to twist their powers of reasoning to... show more
    Best answer: In Mere Christianity, the late C S Lewis explains his understanding that we experience time moment by moment, but that to God past, present and future are all one, so He experiences all times at once. Lewis claims that his view is based on Theology; it's amazing the lengths that theologians went to twist their powers of reasoning to conclude what they intended to conclude from the start, however unreasonable that conclusion might be to someone who just follows the evidence. The Prima Mobile or Prime Mover goes back at least to 13th Century Theology, such as Summa Theologica by Tomaso Aquino (St Thomas Aquinas) who said something like everything needs a cause until you trace all causes back to the first cause that needs no cause, and we call that God. It seems to have been thought up to reflect Isaiah 57:15. To me the logic is fatally flawed - it assumes that despite all things needing a cause, there is an unexplained exception. Some also seem to have the concept that there's such a thing as "outside space and time". Whether that can be explained in objective terms seems doubtful. It also seems to be meaningless. They also seem to think that the "big bang" needed a cause outside of itself, without considering what that means in theory and mathematically or whether it actually has any real meaning. I also wonder how, if God existed eternally, He could have got around to creating things. The point of creation would have been an eternity away; so He wouldn't ever have got to it. One way to define time is by saying that it is motion through space. Before the expansion of the universe started, the dimensions of space (and some physicists think there could be as many as 11) were curved in upon themselves completely; 3 of them uncurled sufficiently for the universe to be the way that could lead to our existence. Motion and therefore time started at the Big Bang, and prof Stephen Hawking likens asking what happened before the big bang to asking what’s further north than the North Pole; the expansion mightn't have needed a cause, but if it did, that cause is part of the universe.
    10 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Why is homosexuality becoming more acceptable today than ever before?

    We're becoming more compassionate and respectful of the freedom of others to do what doesn't harm others; and homosexual relations between consenting adults doesn't harm others. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is based on the barbaric laws and attitudes in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (which demands the death penalty), Romans... show more
    We're becoming more compassionate and respectful of the freedom of others to do what doesn't harm others; and homosexual relations between consenting adults doesn't harm others. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is based on the barbaric laws and attitudes in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (which demands the death penalty), Romans 1:24-27 (which also includes lesbianism and claims that homosexuality is a curse from God for idolatry), 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Jude 1:7. In my view, people can by all means apply the belief to themselves, but I think they're wrong to impose their hateful beliefs on others. The now failed Proposition 8 in California was a shameful example of this. I don't accept that someone can "hate the sin but love the sinner", although I did think it made sense when I was religious. I now think that if a believer seeks to make people feel uncomfortable, or even under threat, or deprive them of personal freedoms and human rights, that behaviour is hatred of their fellow humans, and persecution of a minority, whatever else is claimed. And I also wonder why anyone would want to be associated with beliefs that are based on a lack of compassion. Same-sex marriage will mean that more people in our society will be able to lead happy and fulfilled lives, like those of us who are heterosexual. I came across this article by Anjana Ahuja, The Times, July 12, 2005: In Born Gay, Dr Glenn Wilson, reader in personality at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Dr Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London, declare that “the accumulation of evidence from independent laboratories across the world has shown that the biological differences between gay and straight people cannot be ignored . . . our sexual preference is a fundamental and immutable component of our human nature”. Wilson and Rahman’s account goes beyond whether there is a gay gene — there is no single gay gene but genes do contribute — and considers the effect of sex hormones to which foetuses are exposed in the womb. The boldly titled book says the research leaves absolutely no room for parental or societal influence on this intimate trait. Children cannot be seduced or otherwise led into homosexuality — which makes a nonsense of Clause 28, the law banning the promotion of homosexuality — and, however overbearing the mother or absent the father, no amount of poor parenting can waylay a child born to walk the path of heterosexuality. (Note: Clause 28 was brought in by the Thatcher government. It outlawed the promotion of homosexuality. It was repealed under the Blair government.) No serious, evidence-based scientist, they charge, would deny that sexual orientation is fixed at birth. The authors also speculate that we face an evolutionary future in which homosexuals become more prevalent. The genes that are implicated in gayness do not just influence sexual orientation — in low doses, they might confer personality advantages to heterosexual men (such as making them loyal, empathic and considerate), turning them into attractive mates and thus propagating those genes further.
    32 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Why do Evolutionists just take it on faith that God isn't real?

    I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based... show more
    I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    24 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Is there any god?then which is the real god?

    There have been and are many different beliefs in gods and goddesses. They are of course mythical. Belief in a god probably goes back to times when people didn't understand how the seasons worked. And when winter came and the crops no longer grew, some sort of sacrifice would have been made to the sun, and then it came back and the crops grew.... show more
    There have been and are many different beliefs in gods and goddesses. They are of course mythical. Belief in a god probably goes back to times when people didn't understand how the seasons worked. And when winter came and the crops no longer grew, some sort of sacrifice would have been made to the sun, and then it came back and the crops grew. The people would have associated the sacrifice with the positive outcome, and they wouldn't have dared not do it again because they couldn't risk famine. In time the sacrifice will have become more sophisticated, and perhaps the idea came about that the sun might be the gift of a god rather than the god itself. This might be a way, or similar to a way, that religion developed. People would then have assumed that the laws that their ancestors devised came from the god, so the religion would have become even more sophisticated still, providing authority for the laws and fear of a vengeful god if laws were disobeyed, and the same fear would make others stone to death anyone who breached a law to avoid vengeance being visited on the whole community. There are probably other elements, but it will have gone back to the dawn of civilisation. And it's become institutionalised, and there are many religions, cults, sects and denominations (including "non-denominational", "not a religion but a personal relationship...", and many others). It's survived because it's become institutionalised, provides a living for some, and is deeply ingrained into traditions and into national, international or intra-national identities; that it's still survived is both puzzling and fascinating. The following biblical verses claim that God doesn't change: Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should tell or act a lie, neither the son of man, that He should feel .... He is not a human, and he does not change” Psalm 102:24-27: "So I said: "Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." Malachi 3:6: "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (For those who believe in the divinity of Christ.) But the idea of the biblical God does change throughout the course of the Bible as does the name, and there seem to be several changes of Deity. For example: - The God in the Genesis creation story is called Elohim. The Elohim are the sons of El in the Canaanite pantheon. They were ruled by El Elyon (God Most High), and later by Hadad the rain god, who is generally the god referred to by the title Baal (Lord). The enemy of the Elohim is Yam (the sea), a chaos monster slain by Baal. This might have been derived from the Sumerian creation epic Enuma Elish, in which the god Marduk battles the great dragon Tiamat (the waters of chaos, and mother of the gods) and divides her body to create the heaven and the earth. In Genesis 1, God's Spirit moves upon the face of the waters (verse 2) and then divides them (verses 6-7). Marduk hangs up his bow after his victory over Tiamat, much as God does in Genesis 9:13 after the Flood. - In Genesis 14, Abraham is blessed by Melchizedek, the king of Salem that Abraham and other kings have just conquered. Melchizedek was also the High Priest of the "Most High God" of the Canaanite pantheon (El Elyon). Abraham assimilates the attributes of this god into his own. - When Moses encounters God, God introduces himself as Yahweh (I am who am, I will be what I will be, etc). Continuity with previous beliefs is maintained by the claim to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -Exodus 19:9 makes him appear to be a thunder god - And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD. -In Exodus he also looks like fire, for example Chapter 19 Verse 18. -Exodus 34:5, still a storm god - And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. - In the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles generally, He’s a War God. -1 Kings 19:11-12 suggests that God isn't in wind, earthquake or fire, but in a still, small voice - And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. - In Acts 17, Paul further assimilates the attributes of Greek gods into the deity, when he identifies the "unknown god" as the one he is teaching about. - Religions have personified Love as divine beings, such as Aphrodite/Venus and Eros/Cupid. And this might be what influenced John to write "He that has not known love has not known God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8) and "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." (1 John 4:16). Paul's view in Romans 1 that His existence is plain in what can be seen seems to be more like wishful thinking and an excuse to persecute others. Paul states that those not believing in the particular God he was writing about were punished by God by being made homosexual (men and women) and then punished for that (death by stoning was the usual remedy for most things).
    14 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Why do Christians continue the original Sin? Why do Christians reproduce if it is the only and original sin?

    Paul explains in Romans 5:12, "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." The sin was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But he blames women more: "...I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be... show more
    Paul explains in Romans 5:12, "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." The sin was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But he blames women more: "...I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:9-15). The Adam and Eve story was a myth that tried to explain how death, toil and other woes came into the world and why we aren’t immortal; and like the Greek Pandora myth, a woman is blamed (and by extension, in a patriarchal society, all women). The first man and the first woman live in a state of primaeval leisure and innocence in the garden of Eden until, tempted by the serpent, they eat the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in defiance of God's wishes. It was one of two trees in the garden, the other being the "tree of life". These trees are thought to represent two originally separate traditions which the biblical author has brought together to express his view of the origin of the human condition. The first tree belongs to a distinctly Israelite tradition. The "knowledge of good and evil" probably means the capacity for rational and ethical judgement. This attribute belongs supremely to God, who forbids humans to acquire it. After the first human pair has defied his command, God condemns them and their descendants to a life of toil and pain. He drives them from the garden in order to deny them the fruit of the tree of life, which would bestow the other divine attribute, eternal life (Genesis 3:22-24). Thus humans are like God in one respect but, unlike him, they die. In this distinction lies the vast potential but also the limitation of human existence. A sacred tree that confers eternal life occurs in many mythologies and is common in Near Eastern iconography. Numerous myths of the region explain that humanity is mortal because one person failed to eat a magical food that would have made them live forever (one example is found in the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh). But the story in Genesis is alone in stressing that humans continue to suffer death as a direct consequence of their disobedience to God's command. The belief that the snake was Satan is not in Genesis 3; it's a later belief that has been read back to give a meaning to the story that wasn't originally there. It seems to stem from Revelation, with the identification of the Dragon (Yam from Canaanite myth and earlier Tiamat from Sumerian myth) with Satan and the Serpent from Eden, which seems contrived. They were originally different myths. In Sumerian and Babylonian mythology, Adamu was the first man. The gods tricked Adamu and his descendants out of immortality - not wanting man to be immortal like the gods - by telling him that the magic food of eternal life was poisonous to him, and as such Adamu didn't eat it and so didn't become immortal.
    13 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Why don't you idiots not believe in God?

    I personally wouldn't dream of calling someone an idiot merely because their views differ from mine. I don't believe that without God the entire universe would not exist nor that everything we see is evidence. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself... show more
    I personally wouldn't dream of calling someone an idiot merely because their views differ from mine. I don't believe that without God the entire universe would not exist nor that everything we see is evidence. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in. I also don't agree with him that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). This seems to work only for people who believe, and is a flawed way to confirm their belief. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    17 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Final question, do you think we are nearing The Mark of The Beast (666)?

    Revelation 13:17-18 says, "Nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name of the wild beast or the number of its name. Here is where wisdom comes in: Let the one that has intelligence calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a man's number; and its number is six hundred and sixty-six." The... show more
    Revelation 13:17-18 says, "Nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name of the wild beast or the number of its name. Here is where wisdom comes in: Let the one that has intelligence calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a man's number; and its number is six hundred and sixty-six." The references refer to the Roman Empire of the time, and the number of the beast is a sacred or magical code system (gematria) that uses numbers for letters. It's highly probable that it refers to the Roman Emperor Nero, and the use of code was to avoid Roman reprisals. There are other metaphors for Rome, like the Whore of Babylon. John prophesies the imminent fall of the Roman Empire in the 1st/2nd century, followed by a Judaeo-Christian theocracy (Kingdom of God); a prophecy that didn't materialise. The mark of the Beast was described some kind of mark or tattoo on the head or hand enabling people to be economically active within the Roman Empire. But it might possibly be Roman coinage with the head of the emperor, or perhaps some kind of imperial documentation. The Beast in Revelation likely referred to the Roman Emperor Nero. In Hebrew, letters are also used as numbers; the figure 666 is reached by adding up the numerical values of the Hebrew letters "Qsr Nrwn", which transliterates the Greek "Kaisar Neron" ("Emperor Nero"): Q = 100 S = 60 R = 200 N = 50 R = 200 W = 6 N = 50 Total:666 So it's a kind of code using magical numerology, perhaps to conceal the real message from the Romans.
    7 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • If our God is "I am", what does that make us?

    "Not Him"...
    "Not Him"...
    14 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • How come God didn't cancel the plan to create a certain angel that God know will be the father of lies before God made the angel?

    Satan was originally portrayed as under the orders of God, and testing mankind under God's direction (Book of Job). And this seems to have been his function when he tempted Jesus in the desert, but perhaps starting to be presented as an enemy. The figure became demonised by early Christians, along with the deities of other peoples such as Ba’al... show more
    Satan was originally portrayed as under the orders of God, and testing mankind under God's direction (Book of Job). And this seems to have been his function when he tempted Jesus in the desert, but perhaps starting to be presented as an enemy. The figure became demonised by early Christians, along with the deities of other peoples such as Ba’al Zebul (“Lord of the High Place”, corrupted to Beelzebub “Lord of the Flies” when demonised). The writer of Revelation’s identification of the Dragon with Satan and the Serpent from Eden seems contrived. The word Devil comes from Greek Diabolos and means Accuser/Advocate, as does Satan; so it's probably just a translation of Satan into Greek. They were originally different myths: Genesis 3:1: "Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." Job 1:6: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." The myth of the adversary/accuser probably became fearful over time. Perhaps originally fear of being found out by someone (though mythical) whose job was to do so. It might have become more comforting, by degrees, to demonise him and turn him into an enemy rather than servant of God. And in the 1st century, Greek culture was influential, so early Christians may have conflated Satan with the Greek god Pan, which explains the goat-like image often portrayed. Jesus is quoted as reproving the Jews who don't believe that He is from God and are looking for a way to kill Him. He tells them that they aren't Abraham's or God's children: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44). So it looks like aggression toward them, perhaps calling them liars, or even lies, themselves. Christians have for some reason identified Lucifer (Latin: Light Bearer) with Satan. Lucifer was applied to Venus as it appeared as the Morning Star. But Christians seem to see the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12, "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star (Lucifer), son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" But if you read Isaiah 14:3 onwards, you'll see that the passage is a taunt against the King of Babylon. And Ezekiel 28 is about the Prince of Tyre, not the devil or any other angel or demon. Even in a religion like Christianity, Satan is a god albeit evil. Perhaps in a similar way that in Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda is the good god while Angra Mainyu or Ahriman is the evil god. In fact, in Christian scripture Satan is called "the god of this world (or age)" (2 Corinthians 4:4). But Christians don't like to admit that the supernatural entities in which they believe other than God are gods, goddesses or demi-gods, like angels, saints and the 3 persons of the Trinity. Some of the Gnostics believed that the Creator wasn't supreme and not fully virtuous. So there might be those who would consider a god that one branch of a religion might consider to be less than a god. It's unlikely that a doctrine will be formulated that says that Satan will repent. If there were no supernatural war the dynamics of the religious beliefs would be changed, which rely on cosmic enmity between the spiritual forces of good and evil. "Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back." (Revelation 12:7).
    10 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Are you ready for Jesus come back!?

    Jesus is attributed with saying “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) According to... show more
    Jesus is attributed with saying “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) According to Revelation 1:7 we won't be able miss him, "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen." This quotes from Daniel 7:13, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.” And the later Matthew 24:30, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." These prophecies were therefore expected to happen within the lifetimes of those living at the time, the 1st or 2nd century CE, followed by 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6). They just didn't happen, although believers push them further and further into the future to other times, when they continue not to happen.
    12 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • God exists?

    Best answer: I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I... show more
    Best answer: I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    13 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Without religion where is the basis of our values?

    We all tend to make choices, and have the same basic morality and values, as each other, as part of the complex behaviour patterns that evolved in our species, and others, and they increase our fitness to survive as a species. . When several behaviour patterns conflict in a given situation, our upbringing, experience, need to live as part of a... show more
    We all tend to make choices, and have the same basic morality and values, as each other, as part of the complex behaviour patterns that evolved in our species, and others, and they increase our fitness to survive as a species. . When several behaviour patterns conflict in a given situation, our upbringing, experience, need to live as part of a community, and the satisfying chemical changes that evolved to happen in our brains when we do someone a favour, determine which to suppress; this is often done subconsciously, but can sometimes be conscious (which might be what we experience as conscience). And when this goes wrong, we have remedies as a species codified in laws, penalties and punishments. Having experience of life, I base my choices on mutual respect and compassion for others. I don't attribute the origin of moral behaviour and values to mythical beings, or claim that the way we resolve conflicting behaviour patterns consciously is through something supernatural or that the conscience is supernatural or comes from a supernatural being. We are responsible for our own lives, together with others that we have developed relationships with. If you watch and care for others, you will increase the chances of others doing the same for you. Of course, parents and siblings are a good starting point, since the caring is already there in the majority of families. Most people behave in a way that benefits themselves, and this in turn benefits the community as well. We’ve also evolved to feel rewarded when we do favours for others; this in turn increases the chances that others will return favours. Whether they believe it or not, I don't think most people behave like this because of the threat of eternal punishment. This and other behaviours probably developed over millions of years of evolution by natural selection. It has survival value, and is observed in other species. Our behaviours are more complex than that of other species, and our communities are very complex too. We've developed behaviour patterns to live in community. When several behaviour patterns conflict in a given situation, our upbringing, experience, need to live as part of a community, and the satisfying chemical changes that evolved to happen in our brains when we do someone a favour, determine which to suppress; this is often done subconsciously, but can sometimes be conscious (which might be what we experience as conscience). And when this goes wrong, we have remedies as a species codified in laws, penalties and punishments. Basic moral behaviour has been observed by the ancient Greeks, and has been known as the Golden Rule. It’s also found in the Bible, in both the Old (Ecclesiastes 11:1) and New Testaments, and most of us are familiar with the motto, credited to Jesus in the gospels, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; this isn’t originally a religious idea, but an evolved behaviour pattern. We don't get our morality from religion, although religions try to explain moral behaviour mythically by giving its origin to a deity or deities.
    23 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Why do some people say that the bible is an extremely brutal and merciless book, in which its heroes and its god do dreadfull things?

    The command to worship one God in one way only, to the exclusion of all others, seems originally to have been a way of uniting a people within their social structure and engendering enmity against other peoples who might compete for, or already possess, desired land and resources, and ‘justification’ for their genocide related in several places in... show more
    The command to worship one God in one way only, to the exclusion of all others, seems originally to have been a way of uniting a people within their social structure and engendering enmity against other peoples who might compete for, or already possess, desired land and resources, and ‘justification’ for their genocide related in several places in the Bible such as Numbers 31:17-18. In the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, genocide and regicide are shown as commands from God, who is clearly a god of war in those books. The Bible contains massive violence, pornography (such as Ezekiel 23:19-20), inequality of gender, genocide and mass murder, and of course horror stories like the lake of fire, all condoned as being the will of God.
    17 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • If we all became christian would we have peace on earth?

    Hardly. History is full of Christian sects persecuting and waging wars against each other, more recently Northern Ireland. Even in the New Testament (largely the epistles of Paul) it's evident that the Church (or the Way) already had varying factions and beliefs. Christian teachings attributed to Jesus like "Do unto others as you would... show more
    Hardly. History is full of Christian sects persecuting and waging wars against each other, more recently Northern Ireland. Even in the New Testament (largely the epistles of Paul) it's evident that the Church (or the Way) already had varying factions and beliefs. Christian teachings attributed to Jesus like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Golden Rule: older than Christianity) , "Love thy neighbour" and in some circumstances "Turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) are the kinds of teachings that are still relevant and supportive of peace. The following are certainly not: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:34-38). I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law (Luke 12:49-53). If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matthew 10:21-22) He that is not with me is against me. (Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23) Deuteronomy 21:18 demands the stoning to death of rebellious teenagers, endorsed by Jesus according to Matthew 15:1-9. The so-called Christian Right in the US justify unrestricted gun ownership perhaps by quoting words attributed to Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34+ as above). The equivalent of a sword nowadays could be said to be a gun. But control over gun ownership is clearly better. We keep getting these stories from the US. It isn’t absolutely perfect in Europe, but I’m sure it’s a lot safer with restricted gun ownership. I live in Wales in the UK where gun ownership is controlled. And I'm glad it is, because feeling safe is important.
    31 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Why do lions and other morons think the universe is evidence for their God?

    Believers wouldn't want to prove God exists because that would deny faith. And Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in. I also don't agree... show more
    Believers wouldn't want to prove God exists because that would deny faith. And Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in. I also don't agree with him that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). This seems to work only for people who believe, and is a flawed way to confirm their belief.
    10 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Biggie biggie biggie there's a God for sure he will provide for ur succor, ur opinion?

    I thought so once. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage... show more
    I thought so once. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    7 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Guyz take heart there is hope, there is a God for sure, ur opinion?

    Most if not all of us, have the resources within our brains to cope with problems, and hope is the behaviour that drives us to work towards a good result, though not of course a guarantee; we evolved that way, and that's where encouragement, confidence, happiness and hope come from. And this applies to the grieving process, as well as the mutual... show more
    Most if not all of us, have the resources within our brains to cope with problems, and hope is the behaviour that drives us to work towards a good result, though not of course a guarantee; we evolved that way, and that's where encouragement, confidence, happiness and hope come from. And this applies to the grieving process, as well as the mutual support and sympathy of relatives and friends. Some project these resources onto a mythical deity or spirit; but it's us that are doing the coping really, not any outside agency. As regards God, I once believed. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    7 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Is god real?

    I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in... show more
    I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    22 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Whats the purpose of life?

    I don't think there's any objective meaning or purpose of life. We adopt or are given our own purposes as we go through life, although we don't think of them in those terms, nor are they always planned or decided consciously. I have plenty of purpose in my life. How I live involves caring for my wife, child, parents, and extended... show more
    I don't think there's any objective meaning or purpose of life. We adopt or are given our own purposes as we go through life, although we don't think of them in those terms, nor are they always planned or decided consciously. I have plenty of purpose in my life. How I live involves caring for my wife, child, parents, and extended family. As well as that, I have friends and acquaintances, and my pension after a 44-year career. I keep myself fit by going to the gym several times a week; I'm generally happy and get on with people, and like to think I behave towards others with compassion and mutual respect. I've been in the forces and been a scout leader. I consider myself lucky and excited at the way my personal and professional life has turned out. And the future is full of hope. I analyse problems and take whatever action is needed to avoid difficulties to me and my family, and to help others. Most, if not all, of us have the resources within our brains to cope with problems, and hope is the behaviour that drives us to work towards a good result, though not of course a guarantee; we evolved that way, and that's where encouragement, confidence, happiness and hope come from. And this applies to the grieving process, as well as the mutual support and sympathy of relatives and friends. Some project these resources onto a mythical deity or spirit; but it's us that are doing the coping really, not any outside agency. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since I realised in mid-teenage - nearly 50 years ago - that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. And I'm happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity.
    12 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Aren't atheists jealous of the fact christians have found an actual meaning to their life?

    I don't think there's any objective meaning or purpose of life, and I'm not jealous of anyone who has convinced himself or herself that there is. We adopt or are given our own purposes as we go through life, although we don't think of them in those terms, nor are they always planned or decided consciously. I have plenty of purpose in... show more
    I don't think there's any objective meaning or purpose of life, and I'm not jealous of anyone who has convinced himself or herself that there is. We adopt or are given our own purposes as we go through life, although we don't think of them in those terms, nor are they always planned or decided consciously. I have plenty of purpose in my life. How I live involves caring for my wife, child, parents, and extended family. As well as that, I have friends and acquaintances, and my pension after a 44-year career. I keep myself fit by going to the gym several times a week; I'm generally happy and get on with people, and like to think I behave towards others with compassion and mutual respect. I've been in the forces and been a scout leader. I consider myself lucky and excited at the way my personal and professional life has turned out. And the future is full of hope. I analyse problems and take whatever action is needed to avoid difficulties to me and my family, and to help others. Most, if not all, of us have the resources within our brains to cope with problems, and hope is the behaviour that drives us to work towards a good result, though not of course a guarantee; we evolved that way, and that's where encouragement, confidence, happiness and hope come from. And this applies to the grieving process, as well as the mutual support and sympathy of relatives and friends. Some project these resources onto a mythical deity or spirit; but it's us that are doing the coping really, not any outside agency. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since I realised in mid-teenage - about 45 years ago - that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. And I'm happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity.
    12 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago