Atheism and Theism

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Did you just compare you giving advice as the same thing as the instructions of God?

I don't believe in God, but for someone that did, I'm sure that would seem like a huge leap.

The comparison is in respect of the choice that we all have to decide what to do when presented with alternative courses of action.

When facing a problem I can choose to act on self-will or on that which I determine by reaching out beyond myself to the will of God as best I can determine it from scripture or from whatever conscious contact with the Holy Spirit that I can engage in through prayer or meditation.

I don't think in terms of God instructing me to do something - I think of it in terms of what is God's will for me in any situation. I can choose to follow God's will or my will...fortunately quite often they can be one and the same thing - there is not always a conflict.

 

[Swango1980]

The comparison is in respect of the choice that we all have to decide what to do when presented with alternative courses of action.

When facing a problem I can choose to act on self-will or on that which I determine by reaching out beyond myself to the will of God as best I can determine it from scripture or from whatever conscious contact with the Holy Spirit that I can engage in through prayer or meditation.

I don't think in terms of God instructing me to do something - I think of it in terms of what is God's will for me in any situation. I can choose to follow God's will or my will...fortunately quite often they can be one and the same thing - there is not always a conflict.

Presumably if somebody ignores your guidance, you don't routinely condemn them to hell?

 

[Voyager EMH]

I find the combing through very old texts to find criticisms of religious beliefs very tiresome and ultimately pointless.

Old texts are what they are. The thoughts of people who lived in a time and place and were influenced by the culture of that time and place.

A problem arises when some people today think that those texts are an absolute and immutable truth.
That is not a problem rooted in the texts. It is a problem with the thoughts and minds of the people who see those texts as immutable and absolute truth.

Our Bill Of Rights 1689 is a reflection of our understanding in 1689.
It was not, and is not, an absolute truth.
We have moved on and improved it over the centuries.
It is in seeing a way to make improvements and increase human understanding that should be mankind's pursuit.

I have lived in my time and place. I was very influenced as a teenager and as a young man by Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent Of Man."
This was a contemporary work.
It will ultimately become an ancient text. But it will be worth reading as a reflection of human thought and understanding in 20th century. Not an absolute immutable truth.

 

[Fade and Die]

I find the combing through very old texts to find criticisms of religious beliefs very tiresome and ultimately pointless.

Old texts are what they are. The thoughts of people who lived in a time and place and were influenced by the culture of that time and place.

A problem arises when some people today think that those texts are an absolute and immutable truth.
That is not a problem rooted in the texts. It is a problem with the thoughts and minds of the people who see those texts as immutable and absolute truth.

Our Bill Of Rights 1689 is a reflection of our understanding in 1689.
It was not, and is not, an absolute truth.
We have moved on and improved it over the centuries.
It is in seeing a way to make improvements and increase human understanding that should be mankind's pursuit.

I have lived in my time and place. I was very influenced as a teenager and as a young man by Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent Of Man."
This was a contemporary work.
It will ultimately become an ancient text. But it will be worth reading as a reflection of human thought and understanding in 20th century. Not an absolute immutable truth.

Good shout…Shame our American cousins do not realise this and re-write the second amendment, their right to bear arms is based on this old act.

Just to keep with the theme of the thread, amongst other things the act was introduced to protect the Protestants who had been stripped of their weapons by the Catholic James 2nd.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I find the combing through very old texts to find criticisms of religious beliefs very tiresome and ultimately pointless.

Old texts are what they are. The thoughts of people who lived in a time and place and were influenced by the culture of that time and place.

A problem arises when some people today think that those texts are an absolute and immutable truth.
That is not a problem rooted in the texts. It is a problem with the thoughts and minds of the people who see those texts as immutable and absolute truth.

Our Bill Of Rights 1689 is a reflection of our understanding in 1689.
It was not, and is not, an absolute truth.
We have moved on and improved it over the centuries.
It is in seeing a way to make improvements and increase human understanding that should be mankind's pursuit.

I have lived in my time and place. I was very influenced as a teenager and as a young man by Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent Of Man."
This was a contemporary work.
It will ultimately become an ancient text. But it will be worth reading as a reflection of human thought and understanding in 20th century. Not an absolute immutable truth.

What you say is correct in itself, but at one time almost everyone ( now only a few , in comparison) regarded them as the truth to be obeyed. They were the absolute word of God, non negotiable.
Then science came along and we emerged from the dark ages, and , surprise, along came answers similar to your statement, I.e “not all in the Bible is to be taken literally,”, “ they were words of their time”. Etc.
Whenever those texts are used by critics of Christianity, and telling points are made,then the goal posts are moved.
Reference has been made a few posts back to the “believe , or you will go to hell” belief. Something now not at all popular. So, no doubt, that will be dismissed as a “thing of its time?”
(I do note that the question was not directly answered)

However, proving or otherwise that the Bible is literal, is not the main reason I doubt the existence of a Creator of the nature as Christians etc believe.
My thinking is similar to Epicurus’s questions. ( as already indicated)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I find the combing through very old texts to find criticisms of religious beliefs very tiresome and ultimately pointless.

Old texts are what they are. The thoughts of people who lived in a time and place and were influenced by the culture of that time and place.

A problem arises when some people today think that those texts are an absolute and immutable truth.
That is not a problem rooted in the texts. It is a problem with the thoughts and minds of the people who see those texts as immutable and absolute truth.

Our Bill Of Rights 1689 is a reflection of our understanding in 1689.
It was not, and is not, an absolute truth.
We have moved on and improved it over the centuries.
It is in seeing a way to make improvements and increase human understanding that should be mankind's pursuit.

I have lived in my time and place. I was very influenced as a teenager and as a young man by Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent Of Man."
This was a contemporary work.
It will ultimately become an ancient text. But it will be worth reading as a reflection of human thought and understanding in 20th century. Not an absolute immutable truth.

Interesting that you mention it, but I’m watching the TV series of TAoM at the moment. Bronowski makes clear that what he gives is his personal view - a view formed in the context of the time and his understanding and interpretation of people, places, events and thing of the past. It’s fascinating.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Interesting that you mention it, but I’m watching the TV series of TAoM at the moment. Bronowski makes clear that what he gives is his personal view - a view formed in the context of the time and his understanding and interpretation of people, places, events and thing of the past. It’s fascinating.

It is fascinating.
We are looking back at a personal view from 50 years ago. His time and his place in the world.
He looks back 500 years, 1,500 years and back to mankind's earliest known existence. And all the important steps in what he calls The Ascent Of Man.
Towards the end, when he visits Auschwitz, was clearly very deeply personal to him.

It was this approach to "how should we live?" that influenced me.
It has affected the way I feel we should try to think and behave.
Others have chosen a religion to help them to do this. I have not chosen a religion.

It was a great shame that he died aged 66. Some years later my father died at age 66.
We watched the TV series together in the 1970s and talked about it and read the book.
The two men who have influenced me the most.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is fascinating.
We are looking back at a personal view from 50 years ago. His time and his place in the world.
He looks back 500 years, 1,500 years and back to mankind's earliest known existence. And all the important steps in what he calls The Ascent Of Man.
Towards the end, when he visits Auschwitz, was clearly very deeply personal to him.

It was this approach to "how should we live?" that influenced me.
It has affected the way I feel we should try to think and behave.
Others have chosen a religion to help them to do this. I have not chosen a religion.

It was a great shame that he died aged 66. Some years later my father died at age 66.
We watched the TV series together in the 1970s and talked about it and read the book.
The two men who have influenced me the most.

You will I think enjoy Winston’s book I’ve mentioned - he goes back as far as Bronowski but looks at human development through ‘faith’ eyes - in respect of what it seems that ‘man’ believed in through the developments of beliefs based on one or more icons or deities - then into single or multiple god-based religions and then the Abrahamic ones.