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.
That is to say, the starting point. In most other beliefs and religions out there, a god or the gods create humans more or less by accident. The humans are always low in status, and there is a clear difference on what belongs to the gods and what belongs to humanity. Yet in Abrahamic faith, God creates humanity on purpose and in His very image. He makes heaven immediately available in the Garden of Eden, and gives them full access to His presence and immortality. (Tree of Life)
So to recap, the major difference is the starting point. Y'all let me know if there is another belief where humans started out with immediate access to immortality and direct relationship with their creator/creators.
It's interesting, is it not, that this difference seems to make some sort of difference to you...
The starting point for me when considering any religion is to evaluate the basis on which all these stories should be considered. Are they about the truth or more about what people want, need or wish to believe? Two very different starting points indeed. Mine very different from yours in any case.
Otherwise, though I know a little something about all these religions, I'm no expert. Still, it always seems to me when it comes to all such beliefs, they all seem to start at the same place. Just that. They are nothing but beliefs. Regardless the many differences, and too many to count.
In this case or story it always seems to me the beliefs about the test by God, represented by the story of Adam and Eve, are not quite as wonderful as you make it seem. If me and everyone else is having to deal with all manner of pain, hardship and "evil" today because of Adam and Eve failing that test thousands of years ago, I would say that at least this is evidence God created us "in His Very image," because isn't that just like the way of "man's inhumanity to man?"
Finally, is access to immortality or the loss of immortality so important when it comes to what we should believe about this sort of thing?
But it is a story born of primitive minds using a very immature concept of God and Reality. As an atheist, I escaped the conditioning of that primitive and immature concept of God (as the Omni-Creator and intervening Ruler whose Sovereign Wil is the source of everything that happens). The lack of any evidence or even a hint of this all-powerful intervening God during my entire life before my encounter left me completely "at sea" upon actually encountering God. But my lack of preconceptions freed me to try to figure out what this awesome unconditionally accepting and loving God could want from us. I found NONE of the existing speculations and conceptualizations acceptable. None of them made a lick of sense to my very pragmatic atheist mind.
That is why it took decades of intellectual effort in the sciences and in esoteric and religious literature to try to make some sense of it all. Fortunately, my direct consciousness-to-consciousness contact was completely unmistakable and left no doubt that our thoughts are influenced (but not controlled) by the unavoidably ubiquitous existence of the "mind of God" within each of us. Regrettably, too few of us seem to be aware of God or pay attention to His promptings. I was no exception before my encounter. This physical life is quite demanding of our attention and focus and the religions seem to operate as stumbling blocks to knowing God..
However, without the conditioned burden of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable vicissitudes of this existence with the dominant conception as the WILL or plans of an all-powerful OmniMax God, the obvious immaturity of the extant conceptions became readily apparent to me. Sadly, it seems the strong conditioning to an Omnimax God (or rejecting one) has been too dominant and prevalent to allow for a truly objective evaluation of the concept of God as the very sourceof our consciousness and Reality, IMO.
While I can appreciate all you explain about "primitive minds" you don't seem too good at explaining all the modern-day minds still promoting these very same stories as if unquestionably true. Accordingly, I think you might be missing something about what really makes for these beliefs or their resilience. With all due respect to your more personal contact with God and ability transcend all other beliefs they way you have been able. Primitive or not.
While I can appreciate all you explain about "primitive minds" you don't seem too good at explaining all the modern-day minds still promoting these very same stories as if unquestionably true. Accordingly, I think you might be missing something about what really makes for these beliefs or their resilience. With all due respect to your more personal contact with God and ability transcend all other beliefs the way you have been able. Primitive or not.
Must be interesting to walk in your shoes...
I have frequently expressed my utter astonishment that the primitive and barbaric beliefs have endured for over two millennia and counting! "Walking in my shoes" is beyond "interesting," LearnMe. I was unavoidably understating (because the enormity of it cannot adequately be expressed verbally) the disruption to my worldview that the encounter had in my life. I suspect it is not remotely possible to imagine how KNOWING what you thought was some indifferent inanimate venue is conscious AND you are part and parcel of it. Making sense of THAT Reality was no small feat!
I see you 72 virgins and raise you 144 highly experienced lovers, all of whom magically see you as even more handsome and witty than you doubtless are ;-)
It's interesting, is it not, that this difference seems to make some sort of difference to you...
The starting point for me when considering any religion is to evaluate the basis on which all these stories should be considered. Are they about the truth or more about what people want, need or wish to believe? Two very different starting points indeed. Mine very different from yours in any case.
Otherwise, though I know a little something about all these religions, I'm no expert. Still, it always seems to me when it comes to all such beliefs, they all seem to start at the same place. Just that. They are nothing but beliefs. Regardless the many differences, and too many to count.
In this case or story it always seems to me the beliefs about the test by God, represented by the story of Adam and Eve, are not quite as wonderful as you make it seem. If me and everyone else is having to deal with all manner of pain, hardship and "evil" today because of Adam and Eve failing that test thousands of years ago, I would say that at least this is evidence God created us "in His Very image," because isn't that just like the way of "man's inhumanity to man?"
Finally, is access to immortality or the loss of immortality so important when it comes to what we should believe about this sort of thing?
All of us desire immortality. Of course there is a difference to this kind of immortality and just existing forever. We desire eternal life that is full of joy. It should be interesting this faith so far, is the only one I've come across that has access to this at the very beginning. Every other belief is about earning it, or it just don't belong to us, or it belongs only to some.
I'm not sure if I understand your question concerning man's inhumanity to man. Yet we did inherit Adam and Eve's fallen nature. Many say that is unfair, but it does reflect a truth in life. If your parents are rich, you are born rich. In the same way, if your parents are poor, you will be born poor.
It should be interesting this faith so far, is the only one I've come across that has access to this at the very beginning. Every other belief is about earning it, or it just don't belong to us, or it belongs only to some.
Well the Calvinists manage to ruin that theory by claiming salvation is only for the Elect of God. And the Holiness / Pentecostal tradition ruins it by saying that salvation can be lost via fairly minor misbehaviors, unless you can make yourself into their version of the Elect: one of those people who is so sanctified that they literally can no longer sin.
In other words what it boils down to is:
1) The Bible is vague enough that significant parts of Christianity can squint a certain way and see a completely different picture than you do
2) It's less a question of some unique feature of Christianity than it is how each person decides to respond to their belief of choice. For example there are Muslims who want to conquer the world and force submission to their religion through violence and set up a worldwide caliphate; nothing less will do. And there are Muslims that are sane, kind, respectful people who aren't interested in proselytizing, much less in forced conversions. And while I'm not that familiar with Islam, I'm willing to bet that it doesn't just consist of people who are fascistic, controlling nut-jobs and incudes those who believe that Allah is all mercy and patience.
I know, I know, you're going to tell me that the Bible agrees with you, not those other people like the Calvinists, but ya know, that's how this always plays out -- God and the Bible always conveniently agrees with whatever of his followers you happen to be talking to.
All of us desire immortality. Of course there is a difference to this kind of immortality and just existing forever. We desire eternal life that is full of joy. It should be interesting this faith so far, is the only one I've come across that has access to this at the very beginning. Every other belief is about earning it, or it just don't belong to us, or it belongs only to some.
I'm not sure if I understand your question concerning man's inhumanity to man. Yet we did inherit Adam and Eve's fallen nature. Many say that is unfair, but it does reflect a truth in life. If your parents are rich, you are born rich. In the same way, if your parents are poor, you will be born poor.
I suppose if you clarify that immortality means an "eternal life that is full of joy," then I can see how maybe "we" all "desire eternal life," but is this true? I don't spend any time thinking about or wanting eternal life no matter how you describe it. I am perfectly comfortable with whatever our end will be and quite confident it will be the same thing for all of us. Not an eternal life full of joy but nothing to fear or feel bad about either. Nothing in the way of a desire for me either way. It just simply is what it is, or will be far as I'm concerned.
I guess this desire on your part helps to explain why this distinction about Abrahamic faith is important to you, but it seems to be more a function of your desires along these lines (or fears?) rather than an objective evaluation of how true any of these stories may be.
As for my question, maybe it wasn't so much intended to be a question but rather a note about how so many of these stories reflect man's nature rather than what would seem divine in nature. Some believe God created us in his image and this stands to reason given so much of the "good, bad and ugly" we humans tend to display as the species we have proven to be. What our "image" actually looks like, and how we reflect that image in all these stories that always have man in somewhat of a self-centered center-stage sort of roll. Same sort of perspective that had us believing the sun revolved around the earth (until we were forced to accept the truth the Bible failed to provide us). Decidedly chauvinistic also as a result.
I am an atheist, so I'm not inclined to believe much in the way of these kinds of stories to begin with, but if I did believe in a god, I wouldn't blame or implicate the sort of god I would imagine with any of these human shortcomings. I have a very hard time understanding the rationale that justifies how we have "inherited Adam and Eve's fallen nature." No matter what truth it may reflect to you or anyone else, there are other truths more worthy of considering, or at least as worthy far as I'm concerned. One thing is to inherit whatever we might from our parents as we do. Of course, but to believe we ALL must inherit the same thing from Adam and Eve regardless how we're brought into this world? As a result none of our doing? Or our parent's doing? Or our grand parents?
Well the Calvinists manage to ruin that theory by claiming salvation is only for the Elect of God. And the Holiness / Pentecostal tradition ruins it by saying that salvation can be lost via fairly minor misbehaviors, unless you can make yourself into their version of the Elect: one of those people who is so sanctified that they literally can no longer sin.
In other words what it boils down to is:
1) The Bible is vague enough that significant parts of Christianity can squint a certain way and see a completely different picture than you do
2) It's less a question of some unique feature of Christianity than it is how each person decides to respond to their belief of choice. For example there are Muslims who want to conquer the world and force submission to their religion through violence and set up a worldwide caliphate; nothing less will do. And there are Muslims that are sane, kind, respectful people who aren't interested in proselytizing, much less in forced conversions. And while I'm not that familiar with Islam, I'm willing to bet that it doesn't just consist of people who are fascistic, controlling nut-jobs and incudes those who believe that Allah is all mercy and patience.
I know, I know, you're going to tell me that the Bible agrees with you, not those other people like the Calvinists, but ya know, that's how this always plays out -- God and the Bible always conveniently agrees with whatever of his followers you happen to be talking to.
I just want to know if there is a belief out there with as good a start as the Abrahamic faith. When it comes to all the denominations, its moot. A plain reading of Genesis shows us how God created humanity. Whether or not He planned for us to fall or intended for some humans not to make it, that is a different conversation. I would argue against it, but that doesn't matter. Heehee!!! Now, do you have a belief with a better start? Enlighten me. It's not like I'm going to argue against it, if it is the plain reading of that belief. Do you accept my challenge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I suppose if you clarify that immortality means an "eternal life that is full of joy," then I can see how maybe "we" all "desire eternal life," but is this true? I don't spend any time thinking about or wanting eternal life no matter how you describe it. I am perfectly comfortable with whatever our end will be and quite confident it will be the same thing for all of us. Not an eternal life full of joy but nothing to fear or feel bad about either. Nothing in the way of a desire for me either way. It just simply is what it is, or will be far as I'm concerned.
I guess this desire on your part helps to explain why this distinction about Abrahamic faith is important to you, but it seems to be more a function of your desires along these lines (or fears?) rather than an objective evaluation of how true any of these stories may be.
As for my question, maybe it wasn't so much intended to be a question but rather a note about how so many of these stories reflect man's nature rather than what would seem divine in nature. Some believe God created us in his image and this stands to reason given so much of the "good, bad and ugly" we humans tend to display as the species we have proven to be. What our "image" actually looks like, and how we reflect that image in all these stories that always have man in somewhat of a self-centered center-stage sort of roll. Same sort of perspective that had us believing the sun revolved around the earth (until we were forced to accept the truth the Bible failed to provide us). Decidedly chauvinistic also as a result.
I am an atheist, so I'm not inclined to believe much in the way of these kinds of stories to begin with, but if I did believe in a god, I wouldn't blame or implicate the sort of god I would imagine with any of these human shortcomings. I have a very hard time understanding the rationale that justifies how we have "inherited Adam and Eve's fallen nature." No matter what truth it may reflect to you or anyone else, there are other truths more worthy of considering, or at least as worthy far as I'm concerned. One thing is to inherit whatever we might from our parents as we do. Of course, but to believe we ALL must inherit the same thing from Adam and Eve regardless how we're brought into this world? As a result none of our doing? Or our parent's doing? Or our grand parents?
How reasonable or rational is this?
It could be rational due to the physics. Adam and Eve's bodies changed. We inherit our genes from both our parents. If their genes are corrupt, then we are corrupt. And the way it connects so well with Jesus, is that He didn't inhert any corrupt genes from a human father. You could argue what about Mary? You could, but there's no doubt Jesus inherited nothing from a human father. So in terms of rational, through genetics, it makes sense.
Yes, we are the center of the universe in almost all religions. We could say that is a heavy bias. Yet so far, we haven't discovered any life outside this planet. This is in spite of searching for signs of life for the last 100+ years. Things like radio waves with distinguishable patterns. So far, nothing. If we are in fact the only lifeforms in the universe, then I would say the universe revolves around us. With us gone, who would know the universe exists? (Kind of that question of if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)
To the ancients, the sun moves across the sky, as well as the moon. Their cosmology was three tiered, the ocean, land, and the heavens. To the ancient Israelites, they imagined God reside in a heaven beyond the sky itself. Were they wrong? I say it was just there perspective. We have a bigger perspective today. One might say, why didn't God just tell them what was up? Well, perhaps He just didn't feel like it. Haha, I don't want to get to deep into this. I want to keep this one on topic. Yet I may set up another topic discussing these things later.
I just want to know if there is a belief out there with as good a start as the Abrahamic faith. When it comes to all the denominations, its moot. A plain reading of Genesis shows us how God created humanity. Whether or not He planned for us to fall or intended for some humans not to make it, that is a different conversation. I would argue against it, but that doesn't matter. Heehee!!! Now, do you have a belief with a better start? Enlighten me. It's not like I'm going to argue against it, if it is the plain reading of that belief. Do you accept my challenge?
By "as good a start" I take you to mean that heaven is the right of all from the get-go, by just accepting it as a free gift. As I pointed out, that's not a universal teaching within Christianity and your desire to ignore that or compartmentalize it into a separate isolated conversation as if it's not relevant is misplaced IMO.
Granting for the sake of argument that a fair reading of Christianity agrees with you (and I actually agree with you on that point -- it is just that too many Christians start to equivocate and move the goal posts once they have you reeled in as a convert) ... I am not offhand aware of other religions that (1) have an afterlife concept similar to heaven and (2) promote it up front as an enticement to join up. Religions where there's not a sequential afterlife (heaven) but rather a cyclic afterlife (reincarnation / rebirth) are difficult to compare because they are quite different. In general, cyclic afterlives are promoted as something that one achieves only after living countless lives and maybe not even then. And in the Buddhist conception, achieving Nirvana or whatever they call it, is not at all like the Christian concept of an endless pot luck dinner with dead relatives ... it is more like death really, as you are subsumed into some sort of oceanic universal consciousness and lose your identity because you're finally willing to let go of your cherished ego. For most Buddhists, if I understand correctly, you do not survive as anything recognizably "you", so the fact that your constituent parts continue forever is sort of meaningless. Apples and oranges. Such religionists don't live for some glorified or corrected / enhanced version of earthly life. They are not interested in an eventual positive, they just want to eliminate a negative (suffering) by whatever means necessary.
On the other hand maybe what appeals to some of those folks isn't the eventual Enlightenment so much as the notion that you will live other lives, even if not in heaven. Some people find that a comforting idea, though I personally am hard pressed to understand why. I find it horrifying, like a perverted version of Ground Hog Day but without even any memory of any lessons learned before.
So that leaves us with the Zorasters and Sikhs and others that I'm not so familiar with their afterlife concepts.
One thing we can conclude though is that other religions besides Christianity get by just fine without this boon you speak of ... they don't have heaven in the sense that you do, yet they are quite devoted to these other faiths. So maybe it's not the selling point you think it to be? IDK.
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.
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.
