Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jor-el
yet it is only your opinion and that of some man written text that God has a prerequisite ............ God may not reject anyone at all. a God that is not petty and all knowing wouldn't .

How do you know you got it right ? maybe your wrong and your the one getting rejected ? you don't know. so it's only your opinion God rejects anyone. not a fact.

check your egotism .... just because the bible says so doesn't make it fact.

Ripley,

I must assume that you are speaking academically or at the very least in abstract terms, with no real knowledge of Gods preferences in the least. The reason for this supposition of mine is simple, how do you know that I and many others here are not speaking the truth?

We are the ones who say we know God, we are the one who say we speak to him and know his will. We are the one who keep on stating that God has a plan for each of us and that we are free to accept that plan or reject it.

So how is it that you seem to know so much about what God wants and how he works? When you are one of the 1st to reject the idea of an intervening God?

I must assume you are talking in abstract when you state "God may not reject anyone at all", which he doesn't (but you don't know that from experience...) or that "a God that is not petty and all knowing wouldn't"... but who are you to state that? Are you comparing yourself to God?

Are you saying that if you were in his place you would do a better job? In whose opinion exactly? Yours?

People forget very easily that humanity since its creation has never had absolute freedom, we have alwys had degrees of freedom. What you are advocating is anarchy, and God is anything but that...

You are the one who seems determined to press God into your view of what he should be, not the other way around, I'm simply stating what he himself has told each one of us who believe, can you do the same?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Well, not necessarily. While I am unsure of what to believe of this link (which I got from danielost... thank you daniel) it does raise some interesting questions about who Jesus was.

Jesus, history or myth?

While I am not bringing into question the spiritual significance of the Bible, I am questioning its historicity. Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did Abraham? Did Moses? Realistically, there is no real evidence for any of these people to exist. There are certain things in the Bible that are true, for instance, there obviously is a Jericho and a Jerusalem, I personally believe that the Bible post King Saul is more or less historically accurate (more or less), etc. etc. But there are a lot of questions that we can ask of the Bible that cannot be answered by any means other than faith, so to posit that you 'know' this is true because the Bible says so is a little bit less than the truth. You have faith that it is true, but there is not a lot of evidence for many of the things in the Bible, ie Eden, Noah's ark etc. etc. Even Jesus' historicity is dubious at best.

I only find a real issue with the last highlighted comment. The rest is understandable for a non believer, why should one believe all those "mythalogical stories" when human history is unarguably better at giving the true answers of what happened...

As for that last comment, what makes you say that Jesus Historicity is dubious at best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
I only find a real issue with the last highlighted comment. The rest is understandable for a non believer, why should one believe all those "mythalogical stories" when human history is unarguably better at giving the true answers of what happened...

As for that last comment, what makes you say that Jesus Historicity is dubious at best?

Well, what I mean is that given that our only evidence of Jesus Christ as a historical person comes from the Bible and no where else, that does raise a lot of questions for someone like me. I do not think belief in Christianity is illogical, I am just saying that from where I stand, I'm not very sure that Jesus was a historical person. The link I provided raises a lot of questions when it comes to Jesus. For instance, one point I always consider is that when Jesus died, he was given a public execution by the Romans by crucifixion, arguably one of the worst ways to die that has ever been conceived. Jesus' execution in and of itself raises a lot of issues with the historicity of Jesus Christ. Execution by crucifixion was a pretty harsh way to die, one the Romans reserved for real trouble makers. Given that the Bible tells us that Jesus was given a spectacular public trial followed by an even more spectacular public death, and also given the fact that the Romans, who were notorious for their record keeping, left no records of the crucifixion of a man named Jesus Christ, some things don't quite add up. The Bible tells us that Jesus preached to thousands of people on several occasions, and indicates that his death was a widely public affair. The Gospels even claim that the dead rose and presented themselves to the citizens of Jerusalem, among many many other signs to the people that they had hung up the Son of God on a cross. Why is it then that our only evidence of Jesus comes from the Bible? Why are there no records of Jesus as a living breathing human being? We know he could read and write... See, there are a lot of issues with the Jesus story, from where I stand. Belief in Jesus is purely a matter of faith, no ifs ands or buts, and I see no reason why you would have to justify your faith, because thats what faith is, belief in those things that are unseen and unknowable. If you do have good evidence of Jesus as a historical figure outside of the Bible, please, feel free to present it because that would force me to question my own beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Well, what I mean is that given that our only evidence of Jesus Christ as a historical person comes from the Bible and no where else, that does raise a lot of questions for someone like me. I do not think belief in Christianity is illogical, I am just saying that from where I stand, I'm not very sure that Jesus was a historical person. The link I provided raises a lot of questions when it comes to Jesus. For instance, one point I always consider is that when Jesus died, he was given a public execution by the Romans by crucifixion, arguably one of the worst ways to die that has ever been conceived. Jesus' execution in and of itself raises a lot of issues with the historicity of Jesus Christ. Execution by crucifixion was a pretty harsh way to die, one the Romans reserved for real trouble makers. Given that the Bible tells us that Jesus was given a spectacular public trial followed by an even more spectacular public death, and also given the fact that the Romans, who were notorious for their record keeping, left no records of the crucifixion of a man named Jesus Christ, some things don't quite add up. The Bible tells us that Jesus preached to thousands of people on several occasions, and indicates that his death was a widely public affair. The Gospels even claim that the dead rose and presented themselves to the citizens of Jerusalem, among many many other signs to the people that they had hung up the Son of God on a cross. Why is it then that our only evidence of Jesus comes from the Bible? Why are there no records of Jesus as a living breathing human being? We know he could read and write... See, there are a lot of issues with the Jesus story, from where I stand. Belief in Jesus is purely a matter of faith, no ifs ands or buts, and I see no reason why you would have to justify your faith, because thats what faith is, belief in those things that are unseen and unknowable. If you do have good evidence of Jesus as a historical figure outside of the Bible, please, feel free to present it because that would force me to question my own beliefs.

Are you saying we have every record of every trial ever held in the whole of the Roman Empire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Well, what I mean is that given that our only evidence of Jesus Christ as a historical person comes from the Bible and no where else, that does raise a lot of questions for someone like me. I do not think belief in Christianity is illogical, I am just saying that from where I stand, I'm not very sure that Jesus was a historical person. The link I provided raises a lot of questions when it comes to Jesus. For instance, one point I always consider is that when Jesus died, he was given a public execution by the Romans by crucifixion, arguably one of the worst ways to die that has ever been conceived. Jesus' execution in and of itself raises a lot of issues with the historicity of Jesus Christ. Execution by crucifixion was a pretty harsh way to die, one the Romans reserved for real trouble makers. Given that the Bible tells us that Jesus was given a spectacular public trial followed by an even more spectacular public death, and also given the fact that the Romans, who were notorious for their record keeping, left no records of the crucifixion of a man named Jesus Christ, some things don't quite add up. The Bible tells us that Jesus preached to thousands of people on several occasions, and indicates that his death was a widely public affair. The Gospels even claim that the dead rose and presented themselves to the citizens of Jerusalem, among many many other signs to the people that they had hung up the Son of God on a cross. Why is it then that our only evidence of Jesus comes from the Bible? Why are there no records of Jesus as a living breathing human being? We know he could read and write... See, there are a lot of issues with the Jesus story, from where I stand. Belief in Jesus is purely a matter of faith, no ifs ands or buts, and I see no reason why you would have to justify your faith, because thats what faith is, belief in those things that are unseen and unknowable. If you do have good evidence of Jesus as a historical figure outside of the Bible, please, feel free to present it because that would force me to question my own beliefs.

One of the many issues I questioned myself on when I was an atheist was exactly what you posted, how can I be certain of such a persons existence when we can't actually prove it. It is true that one accepts him by faith, it is the starting point, unless you have some outside special help, like God talking to you or appearing to you.

Yet there is another aspect to consider, that is the Gospels themselves. The people who wrote them are relating a testimony of their experiences or at most the experiences of someone they personally knew. As such they contain vital and historical clues that can and have been matched to local historical contexts and accounts, that in itself adds a further degree of reliability to these accounts, since why tell the truth in the details while lying about the general picure presented?

It makes sense that if we can find historical correlations in the accounts, then we can have a degree of assurance that the author was telling the truth as far as he knew it to be the truth.

The same format is applied by historians when analyzing a myriad of different historical records, until they can harmonize the story that all the records relate. It is how historians have detrmined the history of the ancient Empires and their exploits, mostly without any physical proof of said exploits ever being found.

As for records of Jesus' crucifixion, it is admirable that we actually have as many records as we do after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, why would Jesus' crucifixion have had a special status of having survived the complete annihalation of that city?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Ripley,

I must assume that you are speaking academically or at the very least in abstract terms, with no real knowledge of Gods preferences in the least. The reason for this supposition of mine is simple, how do you know that I and many others here are not speaking the truth?

We are the ones who say we know God, we are the one who say we speak to him and know his will. We are the one who keep on stating that God has a plan for each of us and that we are free to accept that plan or reject it.

So how is it that you seem to know so much about what God wants and how he works? When you are one of the 1st to reject the idea of an intervening God?

I must assume you are talking in abstract when you state "God may not reject anyone at all", which he doesn't (but you don't know that from experience...) or that "a God that is not petty and all knowing wouldn't"... but who are you to state that? Are you comparing yourself to God?

Are you saying that if you were in his place you would do a better job? In whose opinion exactly? Yours?

People forget very easily that humanity since its creation has never had absolute freedom, we have alwys had degrees of freedom. What you are advocating is anarchy, and God is anything but that...

as this thread illustrates .... it is not so reliable for us to infer the existance of something that by its very nature can never be observed...

especially when the place we are looking at is the human brain....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
as this thread illustrates .... it is not so reliable for us to infer the existance of something that by its very nature can never be observed...

especially when the place we are looking at is the human brain....

But then again Sheri, that is why we have faith, and the word of God to lead us. It is why we have the Holy Spirit of God in our lives to convict and guide us... He is even there for you Sheri...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
But then again Sheri, that is why we have faith, and the word of God to lead us. It is why we have the Holy Spirit of God in our lives to convict and guide us... He is even there for you Sheri...

But faith is not proof, no matter how hard you try to spin it as such. Faith is just... faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Are you saying we have every record of every trial ever held in the whole of the Roman Empire?

No, but thats one of the things we can take note of. Seeing as how Jesus supposedly had a very public trial and a very public execution, you'd think someone would have taken note. Another issue I take up with the story of Jesus is Biblical Canon. The NT has what, 20 something books, right? But there are many many other ancient texts that talk about Jesus. How do we know the ones that were put there, by men, tell the actual story. Even if we take the historicity of Jesus Christ as a given, how do we know whats right? What if the Gnostics were right about Jesus? Seriously though, I'm wondering. Is this something you have ever taken into consideration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
No, but thats one of the things we can take note of. Seeing as how Jesus supposedly had a very public trial and a very public execution, you'd think someone would have taken note. Another issue I take up with the story of Jesus is Biblical Canon. The NT has what, 20 something books, right? But there are many many other ancient texts that talk about Jesus. How do we know the ones that were put there, by men, tell the actual story. Even if we take the historicity of Jesus Christ as a given, how do we know whats right? What if the Gnostics were right about Jesus? Seriously though, I'm wondering. Is this something you have ever taken into consideration?

The fact is that Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus mentioned Jesus long after the fact and referred to him only as the focus of Christian belief . . . the content of their writings generally condemned the Christians and in one case mentioned the "cursed Christ."

In Doane's "Mythology of the Bible . . . ." he mentions that there were nine historians living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and not one mentioned him even though they wrote about a host of other characters who formed essentialy the news of the day.

now Jesus would have been a headliner. yet nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WiCkEdWENDIGO
I have a converstation going on another thread about this

( lady R's jesus came for the jews.....)

.

many christians on here say I know god just as i know 2+2=4....therefore there is a god..

um sorry this is stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

I still believe that through archeology there's a whole lot left to be found. Perhaps some is lost forever. But I don't think we've come close to uncovering the cache of ancient information there is out there. We really can't honestly say that those men never wrote of Jesus, they may have, we just haven't found those scrolls or manuscripts. Or, they could be lost forever. Perhaps it's those scrolls that later historians based their writings on. We just don't know.

The biggest discoveries of all history may still be lying out there in the desert, or in a cave, or even in some dusty archive no one has thought to check in centuries...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
No, but thats one of the things we can take note of. Seeing as how Jesus supposedly had a very public trial and a very public execution, you'd think someone would have taken note. Another issue I take up with the story of Jesus is Biblical Canon. The NT has what, 20 something books, right? But there are many many other ancient texts that talk about Jesus. How do we know the ones that were put there, by men, tell the actual story. Even if we take the historicity of Jesus Christ as a given, how do we know whats right? What if the Gnostics were right about Jesus? Seriously though, I'm wondering. Is this something you have ever taken into consideration?

Yes, we can take note of it, but we really can't use that as a real consideration because we do not have complete records of all activities that occurred in the Roman Empire, not even records of what happened in Jerusalem. Additionally, the fact that Jerusalem was razed 30+ years after Jesus's execution presents a good reason why those records might not exist. I imagine that the people who were in the city during the siege would have been more than happy to use whatever was in the Roman's offices and palaces to help meet their needs during that time. Also, I really can see people arguing that it was "too convenient" that of all the records maintained by the vast Roman Empire, the records of the execution of some religious nut in a far-flung outpost of the empire somehow managed to survive, especially survive a savage siege, so even having the records would not be something which convinced those not interested in being convinced.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Ripley,

I must assume that you are speaking academically or at the very least in abstract terms, with no real knowledge of Gods preferences in the least. The reason for this supposition of mine is simple, how do you know that I and many others here are not speaking the truth?

We are the ones who say we know God, we are the one who say we speak to him and know his will. We are the one who keep on stating that God has a plan for each of us and that we are free to accept that plan or reject it.

So how is it that you seem to know so much about what God wants and how he works? When you are one of the 1st to reject the idea of an intervening God?

I must assume you are talking in abstract when you state "God may not reject anyone at all", which he doesn't (but you don't know that from experience...) or that "a God that is not petty and all knowing wouldn't"... but who are you to state that? Are you comparing yourself to God?

Are you saying that if you were in his place you would do a better job? In whose opinion exactly? Yours?

People forget very easily that humanity since its creation has never had absolute freedom, we have alwys had degrees of freedom. What you are advocating is anarchy, and God is anything but that...

You are the one who seems determined to press God into your view of what he should be, not the other way around, I'm simply stating what he himself has told each one of us who believe, can you do the same?

I'm stating your view of God very well could be wrong. just like any other religion . you have , just like any other belief , a chance of 50 % being correct. no more no less.

here's another point -- if religion knew God so well as each claim to do , they would be on the same page spiritually . more proof it's only mans opinion of God , not actually God.

Do you think God told you and no one else ? aside from egotistical that's presumptuous of God. and what makes you think you've been told anything by God other than your belief in mans opinion thereof ? Feelings are not proof God told anyone anything. ever. beliefs are not proof . ever.

Religion very well could just be mans delusion. Religions were around long before the Abrahamic 3 and will be around long after they are gone. Each religion in it's hay day thought it was the way. the truth.

and no I'm not taking in the abstract that God accepts all.God would accept all. A God that created and knows everything and isn't limited by mans opinion would. That would be the perfection of God. any thing less keeps God petty and small. Pretty logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
But then again Sheri, that is why we have faith, and the word of God to lead us. It is why we have the Holy Spirit of God in our lives to convict and guide us... He is even there for you Sheri...

faith is not proof of God nor could it ever be. feelings are not proof of God nor could they ever be. belief is not proof nor could it ever be.

so you have no proof . you could be manufacturing this experience within you with no real outside source. people do it all the time when they 'fall in love with someone' who has no feelings for them or even aware they exist ( like many who love Elvis) for example. It doesn't mean they didn't feel love ,,,, it means it was based on nothing real.

* elvis however did exist.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
But then again Sheri, that is why we have faith, and the word of God to lead us. It is why we have the Holy Spirit of God in our lives to convict and guide us... He is even there for you Sheri...

Jorel, faith is approached many ways when arguing for the belielf of g?d??? yet the arguments imo seem to only be valdi as long as they reinforce ones 'faith'...

I do not give a free pass to any of my beleifs they all undergo a critcal analysis ..if i dont know i say i don't know and( i limit the use of lables but in this case i lean towards the agnsotic pov).... ....

Faith is applied very frugally and as a temporary . on matters that require me to take leaps of faith that defy e all logic and evidence and require a commitment of the magnitude that is required including worship and converting.....well this is big stuff in my world..

In my world view all things are equal no one thing is superior to another .. this is just a superfical on the methodology that is in place for drawing conclusions...I may be able to understand why a serial killer (hypothertical) does what he does, what lead to that and perhaps even have a measure of compassion for him and support measures to rehabilitate .. but I am not gonna date him and to take the kind of leap of faith that says contary to all the evidence and arguments otherwise you still have faith..

...Jorel; this for me is the same as walking out in front of a speeding car.or jumping of the palos verdes cliffs because I have 'faith' i can 'fly".....

I can't do it.......

Jorel, what does one say to arguments and evidence that subvert the beleifs that one holds uncriticially????

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
But then again Sheri, that is why we have faith, and the word of God to lead us. It is why we have the Holy Spirit of God in our lives to convict and guide us... He is even there for you Sheri...

I think this is what Sheri is speaking of when she refers to abstractions.

We do not know that we have the word of God. What we know is that we have the word of men claiming to have been inspired by God. Men who claim to know what God thought, desired and said in that time before the creation of man. . . .

Knowing that, those who think like us perceive that it is most likely that God does not guide men at all. Rather, men guide themselves in the name of God.

We have a like perception about faith. We cannot say that faith is a gift from God but agree that it is more likely that it is a product of man who also created the mysteries for all those things resting beyond human explanation.

If we are to examine the alleged words of Jesus, we find that they appeal to the intellect, not a faith in that they are true.

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven."

“So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today."

I personally view the Bible as a crime scene that has been contaminated to the point that it cannot give evidence of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
I think this is what Sheri is speaking of when she refers to abstractions.

We do not know that we have the word of God. What we know is that we have the word of men claiming to have been inspired by God. Men who claim to know what God thought, desired and said in that time before the creation of man. . . .

Knowing that, those who think like us perceive that it is most likely that God does not guide men at all. Rather, men guide themselves in the name of God.

We have a like perception about faith. We cannot say that faith is a gift from God but agree that it is more likely that it is a product of man who also created the mysteries for all those things resting beyond human explanation.

If we are to examine the alleged words of Jesus, we find that they appeal to the intellect, not a faith in that they are true.

"You have heard the law that says, 'Love your neighbor' and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven."

"So don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today's trouble is enough for today."

I personally view the Bible as a crime scene that has been contaminated to the point that it cannot give evidence of itself.

"a crime scene that has been contaminated to the point that it cannot give evidence of itself." is a very good analogy...

i sort of see religon as a really big language game....

fabulating or propagandizing to maintain social control..

ex: what do orthodox communists say about religion...

fantasizing for purposes of escape

ex: what Freud says about religion "in the "future of illusion"....

quoting alleged commands to ground morals

ex:the books of amos and hosea; the ten commandments

motivatng desirable behavior

ex:the athiest who taught sunday school

Telling large stories to weave and mold worldviews..

ex:the giglamesh epic..

telling small stories spinning parables for life ..

ex the parable of the widows mite.....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Yes, we can take note of it, but we really can't use that as a real consideration because we do not have complete records of all activities that occurred in the Roman Empire, not even records of what happened in Jerusalem. Additionally, the fact that Jerusalem was razed 30+ years after Jesus's execution presents a good reason why those records might not exist. I imagine that the people who were in the city during the siege would have been more than happy to use whatever was in the Roman's offices and palaces to help meet their needs during that time. Also, I really can see people arguing that it was "too convenient" that of all the records maintained by the vast Roman Empire, the records of the execution of some religious nut in a far-flung outpost of the empire somehow managed to survive, especially survive a savage siege, so even having the records would not be something which convinced those not interested in being convinced.

Did you know that about 1,100,000 inhabitants were killed by the Romans when they razed Jerusalem?

Of those inhabitants who were Jews in the main and a few foreigners, none were christian. It seems that the olivet discourse of Jesus 38 years previously allowed them to escape with warning before the destruction began.

Titus mentioned in his memoirs that when he witnessed the destruction, it was difficult for him to believe that a city had ever existed on that site.

***Puts on irony hat*** Lucky them that believed in this figment of imagination enough to escape destruction...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Did you know that about 1,100,000 inhabitants were killed by the Romans when they razed Jerusalem?

Of those inhabitants who were Jews in the main and a few foreigners, none were christian. It seems that the olivet discourse of Jesus 38 years previously allowed them to escape with warning before the destruction began.

Titus mentioned in his memoirs that when he witnessed the destruction, it was difficult for him to believe that a city had ever existed on that site.

***Puts on irony hat*** Lucky them that believed in this figment of imagination enough to escape destruction...

Is this a fair sttement, Jor-el? Can we really know how many "Christians" were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus? Can we be certain that there were any? After all, Jesus taught and referred to the Jews and never suggested the formation of a different religious form. That came later with Paul and the disagreements he had with Peter support the idea that Jesus was not instituting a new religion but wanting people to simply understand better a new message.

The real growth of Christianity came in the second and third centuries but we cannot truly estimate Christians in Jerusalem or really define them, if they existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Is this a fair sttement, Jor-el? Can we really know how many "Christians" were in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus? Can we be certain that there were any? After all, Jesus taught and referred to the Jews and never suggested the formation of a different religious form. That came later with Paul and the disagreements he had with Peter support the idea that Jesus was not instituting a new religion but wanting people to simply understand better a new message.

The real growth of Christianity came in the second and third centuries but we cannot truly estimate Christians in Jerusalem or really define them, if they existed.

That information is part of the history given by the early church fathers. The rest comes from Josephus accounts and as mentioned before, Titus' memoirs.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
That information is part of the history given by the early church fathers. The rest comes from Josephus accounts and as mentioned before, Titus' memoirs.

I think most of this information probably comes from Tacticus writing several decades later. Again, despite the mentionings, they do not indicate numbers or the idea that Christians were a significant part of Jerusalem's population in 70 A.D.

Edited by Expatriate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brave_new_world
This hardly proves that the obedient soldier would view Kim Jong or any superior officer as a divine being.

The people of North Korea are highly indoctrinated. They indoctrinate the masses through the media. They may very well view him that way.

Possibly not, I only recalled a Quaker friend who attended Nixon's church stating that with them silence was required as referenced to "Be still and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10).

Required isnt an absolute policy. I have been to a meeting in which via our own free-will remained silent. At the end someone stood up and said the very bible passage you have quoted.

My suggestion that indoctrination was inherent to the faith was based upon some basic philosophical tenents. I think any child who was not already a Quaker and attending public schools and having science classes would need to have some orientation . . . . however subtle . . . . to enter a world where knowledge was gained experientially and science could not challenge the basis of faith. The tradition of "standing aside" would be difficult for someone who had always defended their opinions and kept them in spite of a different view from the majority. To adapt to the concept of surrendering that posture would require some indoctrination at any level.

I think it is commonly held by Friends that because of the liberal nature of their church . . . . the idea of indoctrination or alterations of life styles is invalid. I tend to differ with that and concede that I may be wrong but it is not because I do not know the faith . . . . it is only because I believe human nature would testify otherwise.

I am not gonna try and convince you anymore whether or not that the quakers indoctrinate people. Whether religious or non-religious a belief, creed or philosophy can be indoctrinating. Of course the quakers like any organization has the potential at least to indoctrinate people. However experience at the meeting house tells me that the Quakers I commune with dont. Ask them about anything metpahysic and I guarantee that they will all have different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Expatraite quotes:

"I think it is commonly held by Friends that because of the liberal nature of their church . . . . the idea of indoctrination or alterations of life styles is invalid. I tend to differ with that and concede that I may be wrong but it is not because I do not know the faith . . . . it is only because I believe human nature would testify otherwise."

this is a very wise statement when we think that we are above criticism or 'our path doesn't ever do this" we in effect are creating dogmas ......

my humanness has at times lead me to become so biased i lost sight of openess.....

quakerism is not real popular where i am , unitarianism is though and i a few freinds that share of the experiences and even as much as they enjoy it they see where it could be improved....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
"a crime scene that has been contaminated to the point that it cannot give evidence of itself." is a very good analogy...

i sort of see religon as a really big language game....

fabulating or propagandizing to maintain social control..

ex: what do orthodox communists say about religion...

fantasizing for purposes of escape

ex: what Freud says about religion "in the "future of illusion"....

quoting alleged commands to ground morals

ex:the books of amos and hosea; the ten commandments

motivatng desirable behavior

ex:the athiest who taught sunday school

Telling large stories to weave and mold worldviews..

ex:the giglamesh epic..

telling small stories spinning parables for life ..

ex the parable of the widows mite.....

Let's examine this crime scene analogy, Sheri . . . . I think it can not only be entertaining but impressively accurate.

We have a crime scene and about 50 years later Detective Paul is assigned to the cold case.

He turns up Mark, a witness . . . . but not an eye witness . . . . who tells about the victim and the alleged killer.

The real break comes when another witness, Matthew, comes along and repeats Mark's tale almost to the letter.

Detective Paul continues his work and then Luke comes forward. Now Luke is a bit different from Mark and Matthew because some rich guy in Greece pays him to come forward with his story. It matches pretty well with what Mark and Matthew have said and Detective Paul is getting more confident that the case can be solved.

Still, the old case is not solved but finally another witness, John, comes forward with a lot of very new information. Detective Paul never questions how John could know, so many years later, new information but declares, "The case is solved. We know who was killed . . . . why . . . . and by whom."

Some people don't believe Paul so he tells them that they need to trust him and starts to tell them what the victim wanted them to believe and do. He even quotes the victim with things that never appear in the witness accounts. He forms an organization in the name of the victim. He tells people that they should give 10% of all they earn to him and this new organization and starts sending messages to the branch offices of his organization . . . . letter that will be saved to later prove that the old cold case was really solved and Detective Paul was the hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.