Your Truth, My Truth, The Truth... (Mormon, ghost, gospels, baptism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religion cannot in any way be the answer to the question of moral Truth.
Why?
The simple fact that all the scriptures were written by people, who by virtue of their placement on planet earth, had little to no access to scientific knowledge or even common sense. They lived during a time that their world view would be considered by today's standards to be very narrow and unworldly. These people knew nothing of the facts that are now relevant in today’s world in the 21 Century. They knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between the mind and brain, they did not even know that mental illness actually exited in humans. They knew nothing about DNA or viruses. Nothing about computation, technology or even electricity. None of this is in scripture. They had no idea why people became sick and died.
They were no more knowledgeable than your average ISIS warlord is today. They had no problem with slavery or owning people and treating them like farm equipment. Neither Jesus nor his apostles couldn’t see that slavery was worth condemning.
Neither Jesus nor his apostles couldn’t see that slavery was worth condemning.
The Southern Baptists didn't officially rescind their support of it until 1995. Even then, it wasn't because of some new or different divine proclamation. It was because they were on the losing side of a shooting war over a century earlier.
The Southern Baptists didn't officially rescind their support of it until 1995. Even then, it wasn't because of some new or different divine proclamation. It was because they were on the losing side of a shooting war over a century earlier.
Exactly my point...they actually beat the slaves with a bible in one hand and a whip in the other.
Which is why I stated that neither Jesus nor his apostles couldn’t see that slavery was worth condemning.
If there was a car accident, something caused it. It could have involved more than just one thing, but at the end of the day, what actually happened happened. That part is "the Truth." The three witnesses may be telling "the truth" based on what they observed. After all, that's all they can do. The fact that they may give different accounts could mean that, because of where they were standing when they saw the accident, they missed something someone else on another corner may have seen. That still doesn't change one thing about what actually happened. What happened was "the Truth."
There is a set of videos for testing this effect in social psychology, Katz. In one version the camera angle is such that you just see a young black male grabbing an elderly lady's arm and purse and dragging her offscreen. Most people report a purse-snatching. A second version of the same scene expands the camera's view and you see a car careening out of control toward the elderly lady on the sidewalk which produces a very different report.
As an atheist, it just makes the most logical sense to presume that all of the religions can't be right but they CAN all be wrong -- and that's what resonates with me. Further research seemed to bear that out.
However, honest atheists will always tell you that there might be a god of some kind out there floating around in the cosmos, but there's no evidence. Therefore, it's silly to waste one's life behaving as though there was 100% conclusive proof that such a god exists.
Atheists should never make the claim that "there is no God ... Period" but the lack of evidence of this god is the same thing as no god at all (tips hat to Carl Sagan for that idea).
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Practitioners of most religions declare their faiths to be The Truth. Atheists believe what they have is The Truth.
If there is a car accident and there are three witnesses all on opposite street corners, all three will give you a different account of the accident and each will believe they are telling the truth.
What makes your Truth trutheir than anyone else's truth?
I'll give two rules for the discussion: 1)"God says so" is not valid reasoning and 2)You can't use your own holy book to prove your own holy book.
First you accept that there is an accident - which I assume can equate to, yes there is a God.
Then you have three witnesses. You should not take either one for granted.
You have your own brain and intelligence - use it!
Analyze the account of each witness, ask them questions, carefully listen and evaluate their answers, and see which one makes more sense to you by using your intelligence - you don't have to give anyone a face value.
This is your scene, you are the investigor and you are responsible to dig out the truth.
Use your brain and intelligence to thoroughly investigate all three - listen to your heart to reach the decision as to which one is "The truth".
First you accept that there is an accident - which I assume can equate to, yes there is a God.
Then you have three witnesses. You should not take either one for granted.
You have your own brain and intelligence - use it!
Analyze the account of each witness, ask them questions, carefully listen and evaluate their answers, and see which one makes more sense to you by using your intelligence - you don't have to give anyone a face value.
This is your scene, you are the investigor and you are responsible to dig out the truth.
Use your brain and intelligence to thoroughly investigate all three - listen to your heart to reach the decision as to which one is "The truth".
It's a reasonable question and, while it does not rule out ALL possible gods, it does rather set up some parameters for what any such god cannot reasonably be based on the actions - as comes out of the evidence. The Problem of Evil is always a good one here. Attempts to argue it away with excuses does the same thing as carved toes says - tells us apparent limits to what this god ether can or will do. And that tells us something.
Others bite the bullet and just say that God can do whatever he wants. This effectively gives up the loving father position as untenable and simply opts for the adoration of a dictator who will destroy you if you don't love him.
Either way, it makes me very glad to be an atheist.
The point for the establishment of the laws was to ensure the fairness for all. Of course, if your Father wants, the Third Party of the Holy Ghost should not protest. Think of this: Everybody goes to the heaven. And of course, that clause of everybody includes everybody who you don't like. You could share your bed, your children, your wife with the Chinese, and I totally have no problems and rights to object. But the strict protocols were prepared for the strained scenarios. Which means in case the resources are precious, and not everybody gets his own galaxy. And that were why the restrictions.
If God is so holy as the rolls describe, then the Day of the LORD might not look light.
Well, that's it for you then. You have used your intelligence to find God (if you really wanted to find him, that is), and seek his guidance, but you could not.
You can either choose to continue your quest or live with your decision till the final curtain falls on you and your time is up.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
That is why I often refer to myself as an agnostic atheist. I have no evidence either way about the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, jackalopes, gods, fairies or other mythical creatures. But it seems rational to me to assume they don't exist. That is especially true for gods since in the stories about them, they don't hide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.