Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
Yeh. I think we have both had our say on the topic of non-duality and we can respectfully disagree. I've read Ekhart Tolle and Krishnamurti (I've told you previously that I've read different spiritual texts) and others.

So I have read up on it a lot but I just do not fully agree (as per the points that I raised).
 
pavilion103 said:
Yeh. I think we have both had our say on the topic of non-duality and we can respectfully disagree. I've read Ekhart Tolle and Krishnamurti (I've told you previously that I've read different spiritual texts) and others.

So I have read up on it a lot but I just do not fully agree (as per the points that I raised).
Click to expand...

I like Krishnamurti's stuff.


--In obedience there is always fear, and fear darkens the mind.

--When one loses the deep intimate relationship with nature, then temples, mosques and churches become important.

Krishnamurti, Beginnings of Learning
 
As you can see I am far more open minded than you have believed.

Don't mistake reaching a different conclusion with being closed minded.
 
FxTrader said:
As stated previously, mumbo jumbo (evidenced again in recent postings here) is a defining characteristic of religious belief.


If you truly had a clear understanding of what constitutes evidence yourself then you would have contempt for religious superstition, it's poisonous impact on human society and all the metaphysical nonsense deployed to justify belief in invisible celestial dictators.
Click to expand...

Thankyou so much FXTrader for alerting me to how irrational I am being!

I kept believing a variety of written accounts of an incredible person doing some amazing things, despite never having personally met the man, nor witnessed the accounted events!

Heck! I haven't even personally met the authors of those accounts, and yet, still I believe! How crazy is that?!

Yes, that's right! Based on naught more than written accounts, I believe that, amongst many other things, a man actually walked on the moon!
 
Yeh. I don't understand how people want scientific evidence for Jesus which is impossible but accept historical evidence for events with far less evidence by their own standards.

How so I scientifically prove that Booth assassinated Lincoln? Do I get them over tonight and make them re-enact the shooting?
Come on......

If we are going to be consistent we can dismiss the historical evidence for Christ as unreliable, sure, but then we also have to dismiss the historical evidence for almost everything else beyond a certain time period because by the same standard of evidence nothing comes close.
 
cynic said:
Yes, that's right! Based on naught more than written accounts, I believe that, amongst many other things, a man actually walked on the moon!
Click to expand...

This is a topic I've been studying for the last few weeks, strange that you should bring it up. How can we know anything is true? Jed McKenna's "Theory of Everything" is just the best piece of writing I have found for this. He has you questioning whether reality is actually real, and in a way that will jolt you out of your senses. This is the core of real religion.... not the robes, the churches and the dogma, but what is True.


In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was
inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later:
the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the
validity of experience, but the very existence of external
reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying
was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but
that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know
that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity
works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past
and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the
mind itself is controllable - what then?

George Orwell, 1984
 
Even if the issue of the census, place of birth and all the historical evidence are conceded and we agree they point towards a special man Jesus having existed, there's still the actual problem of inconsistency in teaching, ludicrous values and an introduction of a concept (even if metaphorical) of eternal punishment not mentioned by OT before, weeping and gnashing of teeth etc. that are the very reason I left it all.
Also, what of the historical evidence of joseph smith, prophet muhammad, ellen white, david koresh etc. have you interrogated all of their claims with as much gusto and enthusiasm looking honestly for the 'truth'?
 
When I have time I can post up some more details thoughts.

Briefly none of the others resurrected. Jesus said He would and He backed it up. Not to mention many many specific prophecies fulfilled by this one man. Factors that he couldn't control.

Evidence behind the resurrection.... Maybe even best to Google it yourself. Accompanied by stories of those who actively went out to disprove Chris's resurrection and became so compelled by the evidence that they became believers. The evidence is beyond doubt in a court of law. Seriously look into it.

I'll have to get you the quote of the lawyer with 255 consecutive murder acquittals who examined the evidence for himself and said it was beyond any doubt.

I don't think it's a matter of a lack of evidence but rather a lack of objective investigation by those who claim it didn't occur. Measure it by the same standard as other historical events. See for yourself.

I empathize with you. To just believe is silly. Crazy. But the evidence for this is so abundant that when investigates thoroughly, to not believe is then silly. Crazy.
 
By the way I'm not using those people as solid evidence. Not at all. Just to point out the fact that there is enough evidence to, in instances, convince the hardest critics tying to disprove it.

This isn't just some silly story with no evidence, it is, at very least, a question that demands serious investigation and research in which many intellectuals have reached the same conclusion as I have.

You may conclude differently. That's ok. But let's not pretend that this is a non-issue. The evidence is abundant whether you'd like to think so or not. That changes nothing.
 
There have been others who do incredible things, aside from resurrection. I don't think resurrection is necessarily proof of wholeness.
 
I believe you may be referring to the book A case for Christ, no?
Well if we're assuming the accuracy of the bible account, then resurrection really wasn't that unique, eg. the graves of a multitude of people being opened in matthews account, lazarus, OT resurrections. So my qualm is still the actual teachings as I said a little earlier, that's all. I mean from a logical reasoning point of view, it's a bit of a case of ad hominem. e.g. Because Jesus rose from the dead, everything he said must be true being the fallacy.
 
boofis said:
I believe you may be referring to the book A case for Christ, no?
Well if we're assuming the accuracy of the bible account, then resurrection really wasn't that unique, eg. the graves of a multitude of people being opened in matthews account, lazarus, OT resurrections. So my qualm is still the actual teachings as I said a little earlier, that's all. I mean from a logical reasoning point of view, it's a bit of a case of ad hominem. e.g. Because Jesus rose from the dead, everything he said must be true being the fallacy.
Click to expand...

I think if he
1. fulfilled hundreds of specific prophecies.
2. Claimed to be the son of God
3. Said he would die and rise from the dead and did

He made the claims and backed them up. Tell me who else claimed to be God and rose from the dead with an abundance of evidence? He is completely unique and reliable.

Case for Christ is good. Many other good books though.
 
pavilion103 said:
I think if he
1. fulfilled hundreds of specific prophecies.
2. Claimed to be the son of God
3. Said he would die and rise from the dead and did

He made the claims and backed them up. Tell me who else claimed to be God and rose from the dead with an abundance of evidence? He is completely unique and reliable.

Case for Christ is good. Many other good books though.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity, are you referring to OT prophecies about messiah that he fulfilled?
Do you think he is god or was the son of god?
Do you think that being raised from the dead has any correlation to being God or the son of God?
In regards to the god and risen from dead thing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection , it's really not a bad read and gives a heap to look into even if the source itself is dubious.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolution-is-wrong-and-zeus-is-real-t658.html

It is condescending but I really enjoy aspects of this site.
 
pavilion103 said:
When I have time I can post up some more details thoughts.

Briefly none of the others resurrected. Jesus said He would and He backed it up. Not to mention many many specific prophecies fulfilled by this one man. Factors that he couldn't control.

Evidence behind the resurrection.... Maybe even best to Google it yourself. Accompanied by stories of those who actively went out to disprove Chris's resurrection and became so compelled by the evidence that they became believers. The evidence is beyond doubt in a court of law. Seriously look into it.

I'll have to get you the quote of the lawyer with 255 consecutive murder acquittals who examined the evidence for himself and said it was beyond any doubt.

I don't think it's a matter of a lack of evidence but rather a lack of objective investigation by those who claim it didn't occur. Measure it by the same standard as other historical events. See for yourself.

I empathize with you. To just believe is silly. Crazy. But the evidence for this is so abundant that when investigates thoroughly, to not believe is then silly. Crazy.
Click to expand...

Pavilion, there is absolutely NO evidence to support the resurrection!!! None whatsoever. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; they were written several decades after the death of Jesus. They are full of inconsistencies and factual errors.

The idea of the dying-and-rising god exists in many pagan religions and mythologies, and the resurrection of Jesus was no doubt borrowed from them. It may have symbolic value, but there is no evidence that it physically happened. You need to remember that 2,000 years ago most people were illiterate and very open to suggestion - especially things of an apparently divinely-inspired nature.

Stories that have been handed down by mouth and benefited from embellishment with each re-telling should not be regarded as incontrovertible fact!

You don't have to look very far back in time for proof of what I am saying about a highly suggestible populace. Read about the cargo cults of less than 100 years ago.
 
explod said:
Ruby :xyxthumbs

And today the symbol control is the media.
Click to expand...

Yes, Explod, how true! All I have to do is pick up "Woman's Day" or "New Idea" and I can read the "facts" about the royal family, Hollywood celebrities, or local TV personalities.......... deeply personal stuff - gleaned from a "source close to the family" - all "facts" - and not one of them verifiable!!
 
Ruby said:
Pavilion, there is absolutely NO evidence to support the resurrection!!! None whatsoever. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; they were written several decades after the death of Jesus. They are full of inconsistencies and factual errors.

The idea of the dying-and-rising god exists in many pagan religions and mythologies, and the resurrection of Jesus was no doubt borrowed from them. It may have symbolic value, but there is no evidence that it physically happened. You need to remember that 2,000 years ago most people were illiterate and very open to suggestion - especially things of an apparently divinely-inspired nature.
Click to expand...

Good points Ruby. I might add that virgin birth is also not unique to Christian myth.

As to Cynic's sarcasm...
Heck! I haven't even personally met the authors of those accounts, and yet, still I believe! How crazy is that?! Yes, that's right! Based on naught more than written accounts, I believe that, amongst many other things, a man actually walked on the moon!
Click to expand...
Since we have more than just written accounts of moon walks this is a particularly poor argument in favour of why anyone should believe things strongly based solely on written accounts in iron-age scrolls (otherwise known as faith).

Use of the emotive term "crazy" in this way is flogging a straw man. I am more interested to know why you believe religious myth has any credibility other than it's written down in an iron-age magic book. Religious apologists rely on faith arguments to justify belief in the fantastic claims made in magic books since there is no credible evidence to support such claims. Such belief is then transformed into a personal virtue that must be expressed to every lost soul to avoid chosing the wrong eternal path.

By all means believe whatever religious mythology you like. But in doing so don't arrogantly claim you possess certain knowledge about eternal life and the universe that others do not, don't tell anyone that you can have moral impulse that they can't because you believe in a celestial dictator, don't create laws and institutions to enshrine your mythology in society and (if nothing else) stop indoctrinating children in religious superstition.
 
Matthew and John are eye witness accounts. They were both referred to as the authors from the beginning. This is not a myth that sprung up later in time. Reports of the death of the apostles were also recorded by secular sources. People die for what they believe to be a lie. But no one dies for what they KNOW to be a lie. They either saw Him rise or they didn't.
They were willing to die for it despite prior to the resurrection thinking Jesus was a fake and running away.
Do some historical research.


The virgin birth myth and others in other religions did not appear prior to the first century. Some have claimed that they were from ancient cultures but the first accounts did not appear until AFTER Christ. This is evident with a little research. People bring this up but it simply is not accurate.
 
I tend to go with the following philosophy, because I have plenty of personal experience to support it...

--Consciousness is the only thing that exists in Reality.
--Consensus reality (lets call it "reality") does not in fact exist. Modern-day science supports this notion.
--"Reality" is created when consciousness is filtered down through both individual and consensus beliefs.
--Beliefs can be popular, such as "man landed on the moon in 1969", or unpopular such as "aliens are living amongst us".
--Beliefs are just random meaningless filters of the mind and so can be placed anywhere you like.
--In this sense, "aliens are living amongst us" is no more or less real than "man landed on the moon". I will never have enough proof for either because....

--Proof does not exist in the egoic realm. Nor does truth exist in the egoic realm. Only consciousness exists. Consciousness = Truth = God.

When you dig down deep enough into the religious texts, this is what they're saying.
 
Top