The Rastafarian religion considers only certain parts of the bible to be of divine inspiration. The rest they chalk up to what they call Babylon (Wicked Babylon). Babylon in this sense refers to the power structure (typically classified as white dominated) twisting the true word for power and monetary reasons. The idea makes sense. Based on what I know about human nature today, it seems obvious that if it could be manipulated someone would try to - as long as there is some attention or profit in it.
I like the idea of wicked babylon. The question becomes “Where did the true word end and the falsification begin?” and then, if you aren’t afraid to be intellectually honest: “Is it ALL the work of babylon?”. What evidence is there that these people thousands of years ago weren’t lying, cheating, attention whores? None. In the end all people seem to offer is the fact that they know because they have personally felt god. Well as the rapist who believed he was guided by god shows, 1st person perception is far from infallible. There are many other possible reasons why one could feel as such - reasons which are all delusional to varying degrees.
In the end there is no proof either way. To assume you know for sure is foolish conceit and the sign of a weak and scared mind IMO. Let’s just not support baby killers or those who would justify those who have murdered infants. That type of behaivior turns my stomach. Murder of babies is barbaric and evil. The OT should not be respected nor worshiped by a civilized society. The murder of non-virgin women simply for having pre-marital sex: Are you kidding me?
objective proof of god:
fried chicken.
maple syrup.
shampoo.
‘the price is right’
‘king of the hill’
objective proof of no god:
baywatch.
baywatch nights.
greg the bunny.
red cabbage in every salad except the caesar at every restaurant
and grocery store.
potted meat.
fire ants.
the people born both dense and homely.
Dalovindj, you are certainly correct that first person perception has the potential to lead one into dangerous beliefs. Hence the importance of comparing one’s beliefs with those of others. That way you can get some red flags if your ideas start getting too extreme. This is precisely one of the primary advantages of organized religions, to which I alluded in an earlier post. Personally, I don’t find organized religions to be as blatantly self serving as the majority of skeptics suggest.
Hey, Lib, do you remember that time when I said that Christians act as if Paul were God, and everyone jumped on me? It was a while ago, and I’ not sure if you involved, so you might not remember. Anyway, it looks to me like I was right.
Why need this be so? That is, why couldn’t God make it’s existence (let’s forgo this gender nonsense) known more objectively? If the birth of the Christ had been announced with 400 mile-high carvings of the name of Jesus on the moon – carvings which remained to this day – faith would at last have an emprirical fact to warrant it. And faith would still be required, for we would still be floundering in the mess of different and often incompatible beliefs and sects, each claiming to have the inside story on the “real” Christ.
But all we have is silence. The same silence that would obtain if no deity existed outside of the human imagination. And that silence speaks volumes.
I’m having a little trouble with this. Sounds like as long as my beliefs are similar to those of the people around me, they must be okay.
Hmmm. Among the many evils that have been rationalized by large groups of religious people who pick and choose from the Bible is slavery in early America. (Ephesians chapter 6 comes to mind–traditionally, though not undisputedly, written by the same guy that wrote the above-cited “Love Chapter” to the Corinthians. Other verses were also used, such as those that encourage Christians to spread Christianity, which slavery pretty clearly did.)
I’m inclined to think that this consensus view of things is one of the worst aspects of organized religion. My mom used to ask me if I would stick my head in the fire if everyone else were doing it. I guess I would if I were religious!
What other kind of perception is there? What has Dalovindj ever perceived that was not processed by his own brain within his own closed frame of reference?
You mean like Jesus? Buddha? Gandhi? Mother Teresa? The only heartbreak in living a righteous life is that you yearn to be one with God in spirit, even as your brain remains steadfastly preoccupied with trivia.
“After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.” — Job 42:10
My dear Aunt Sue was the most loving, caring, generous, and Godly woman I’ve ever known or heard of. The ostentatiously poor and less-than-noble Mother Teresa couldn’t hold a candle to her. Yet Sue was manifestly unhappy and miserable in her righteous, other-directed life. She needed some great sin to make her whole, and that she forbade herself in honor to your wretched “Christ”.
Hers is by no means a unique story. Your reference to Buddha, et. al., falls quite flat. The problem is far more profound than you seem willing to merit.
And as for the mythical Christ, who’s life could have been more dreadful? Has the Bible ever presented a more morose, humorless and unhappy man?
My query would stump God itself, if it existed and deigned to communicate with us. Or I suspect at the very least it would yield an answer very different from yours.
What better proof of your “God’s” inability to answer Job’s charges than resorting to hush money to pay off and shut up this blameless and upright plaintiff?
And how many other victims of your “God’s” malevolence have been as fortunate as to merit Job’s final reward?
Job’s charges have never been legitimately answered. Your “God” is guilty; Nietzsche was just recording the sentence.