Thanks for the reposting.
The most likely way people meet God is when they are helpless as I was dying from a heart attack. That is when God steps into lives. As long as the ego is in control it is not likely God will be understood.
So, you can be raised to follow every tenet of your Christian faith literally religiously, but you are still unlikely to encounter your Creator in any meaningful way, unless you have experienced a life-threatening event?
Not so, you can follow the teachings of Jesus and in time understand the unconditional love of God. But Christianity has doctrines that tend to block the teachings of Jesus and/or modify them which makes an encounter with God impossible. For instance, many Christian churches teach that atheists and gays are wrong, thereby breaking the teaching of Jesus to not judge others, and to love everyone. There are many more instances of judging others, thinking Christians are superior to non-Christians, etc.
But not all Christian churches teach this, some like the Amish are willing to forgive even the murderer of their children. That is not to say they are perfect, non are perfect.
Sure I did. Hope that “if I believe it’s true, it is” rationale works for you.
I don’t believe you really know what works for me.
Depends on what you believe.
You are obviously under the impression us Christians are somehow banned from certain sources of information, or at least strongly urged away from them. And you also seem to believe that outside of Christianity there’s a total urge to happily consider all sources of information.
Well I don’t agree. In fact, I consider the truth to be close to the opposite. This was one of the larger discoveries that helped lead to my conversion. It is my belief that Christians willingly explore far more sources.
Consider, as one example, Christian schools versus public schools, which are secular institutions by law. There are many texts, topics, and classes that are allowed in Christian schools but not public schools. There are few if any for which the opposite is true.
This means not only Christians texts, but all kinds. A Christian school is much more likely to teach children ancient philosophy of all kinds, including the Greeks and Romans. A Christian school is much more likely to teach children about the basic beliefs of all religions.
The public schools are not marked by a willingness to be open and engage the beliefs of all cultures. They are marked by unwillingness to openly explore any culture. A typical public school student emerges not with an understanding of all religions, but with an understanding of no religions. Also no philosophy and very little true understanding of art, literature, poetry, etc…
Because the Christians would never tolerate a Religion class that wasn’t a Christian propaganda class. They wouldn’t tolerate a class that treated Hinduism and Christianity and Buddhism and all the rest as equals. The best compromise the schools can implement is to ignore the subject.
AFAIK, the only books expressly forbidden being used as textbooks in public schools are those that specifically espouse a specific religion as being the correct one. Public schools can teach about religion, what they are not allowed to do is teach religion as fact, like in Christian schools. Christian schools are also more likely than public schools to exclude books that might be counter to their philosophy, such books on evolution. If you can show otherwise, please give a cite.
This is a non-sequitur. Why is a Christian school more likely to teach Greek or Roman philosophy than a public school? I posit that a Christian school is *less[/] likely to teach other philosophies, as they take more time teaching the Christian one. Christian schools are also more likely to teach about other religions with a bias toward correct vs incorrect.
Please give a cite for this claim.
As were Jesus’ stories of performing miracles later additions. Much critical biblical scholarship will attest to this.
Let’s discuss the scientific method.
In the scientific method, I follow a certain regimen of steps.
Step 1) I come up with a way to articulate an issue that disturbs me. This is the “problem”.
Step 2) I attempt to come up a theory that, if correct, will explain how the situation came to be. We call this the “hypothesis.”
Step 3) We create a methodology to verify the hypothesis. This is the “test”.
Step 4) We consider the results. If the results seem to prove the hypthothesis, we send the results to others to look for flaws in the test methodology. If the results do not seem to prove the hypothesis, we can either seek further aid on finding flaws in the methodology or we can go back to step 2.
So let’s attack this particular problem:
Problem P1) I wish for people to improve the lot of humanity.
Hypothesis H1) I create and proliferate a certain framework of morality and doctrine to consider, encourage people to research all sides of the issues on all things, and finally to meditate on this during prayer sessions.
Test T1) I find two groups, one which has been exposed to and seeks to follow my hypothesis (experimental group), and one which acts naturally and without influence (control group.)
Result R1) Control group has improved the lot of humanity more than the experimental group.
Okay so that test failed. Now let’s run that result through the scientific method again:
Problem P2) Encouraging morality according to a particular doctrine and encouraging people to spend time reviewing lots of information and thinking over it does not appear to make them behave better than a control group.
Hypothesis H2a) People will accept the doctrine and morality as they understand it and consider themselves “done” without not proceeding to review alternate information.
Hypothesis H2b) People will review alternate information but opt to ignore it when it conflicts with the morality and doctrine they have already learned instead acting on it rationally.
Now I stopped at that point in my post. I proposed H2b–I should have included H2a as well–but didn’t provide a test for either. Your answer back, quoted above, is simply re-endorsing the correctness of H1. Well, I’m sorry but we’ve already moved past that point. If you want to suggest a “H2c” or propose a flaw in T1 or R1 then let’s go ahead, but otherwise we’re just going to go around in circles.
Firstly, no school in the US forbids the introduction of religious study on the part of the students. Most teachers would probably be perfectly happy if their student took to doing cross comparisons of Christian and Shinto doctrine for philosophy class (it might even be part of the curriculum) or attacked the question of the existence of deities in physics class. And my history classes did cover the major doctrine of various philosophies and religions through history and their effects (where applicable.) But this is going to vary by the teacher and his/her interests. What’s disallowed in public schools is for teachers to include material unrelated to the topic of their class or to endorse philosophical or religious doctrine as absolute, infallible fact. The first is common sense, and the second appears to lead to H2a and H2b hence its being frowned on.
Secondly, you’re proposing another circular argument going around between nowhere and nothing. It makes no sense to say that people have to learn spirituality when the only reason for knowing spirituality is to satisfy the need to have learned it. That’s the argumentative equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
I assure you the reason public schools are afraid to touch religion is because of the crap they get from Christian parents and school board members if they dare talk about any religious view that doesn’t include Jesus. Harrassment from Christian fundies is the reason schools can’t even have Halloween activities anymore.
Total bull. My kids history books had quite a nice section on the beliefs of many religions, all treated fairly. Is a Christian school going to teach them in an unbiased fashion? Unlikely. Kids certainly get taught Greek philosophy, though I wish they did more. I guess Christian schools have the time for this subject since they’re not teaching evolution or cosmology. 
If by engage in beliefs you mean treat them as if they were true, then you are right. As it should be. However I would consider engaging in the beliefs of a culture teaching about them, not teaching them as true, and by that definition you are very wrong.
I don’t get what you mean by “true” understanding of art. I doubt many kids are mature enough or have had enough experiences to truly get great literature. I don’t see how a religious school would teach literature any differently from a secular school.
If God is an all knowing, loving Father, then the best prayer is to live a good life,this all knowing being would know one is grateful and would not with hold any guidance for His child, nor would He hold back anything the Child needed or give anything that would cause His child or other children harm.
A good human parent does not know for sure what it’s child needs nor can they read their minds so words are necessary for them.
Monavis
As I understand Lekatt He(or she) does not think of the word ‘God’ to be a separate entity, but existence it self. That is why he can see if harming another etc. is also harming himself.
Like Christians think of Christianity as the body of Christ, lekatt sees existence as the body of God, Not a separate entity. Like the ocean is made of water drops the totality is called Ocean, but each drop is a part.
Monavis
oh, this is just plain wrong.
Logic is intended to be absolutely correct.
Religion is intended to encompass all truths.
There is no human system that can encompass all truths and be absolutely correct. Religion is a human system BASED on revelation from a higher power. (supposedly.)
The fact that many religious people think it’s intended to be absolutely correct make them reject logical truths and lead them to error. When religion should be a search for truth just as much as logic is. But, the fact that many non-believers don’t acknowledge that there is any truth beyond logic and science is also in error.
Without evidence, yes, you can operate on the theory he doesn’t exist. But hiding on purpose wouldn’t necessarily make him a jerk. Suggesting it indicates to me you aren’t a parent. Or, that you don’t think it a valid tactic to give basic instruction, then hide to observe what your child will do when it thinks you aren’t watching. I could also think of another reason to hide on purpose, one parents also use… Sometimes a parent will let a child make wrong decisions for a while to let them see the outcome of those wrong decisions before stepping in to instruct again. Maybe even a diety would send basic instructions then let an entire creation see the outcome of thousands of years of wrong decisions before stepping back in.
Science and logic are methods of dissecting what is observable to us–i.e. that which affects us. If something doesn’t affect us, what practical difference is there from it being real?
Absolutely untrue. Godel’s theorem proved that any (sufficiently complex) system that is consistant is incomplete. Meaning that there are truths in the system, things that affect us, parts of the universe, things in this universe that are true, that logic can never prove. Meaning that they are outside the purview of logic and science, and still in the universe affecting us.
Would you say “well, we know these things are true and that’s enough, nothing else that is true matters?” Or would you at least accept that some people still want to find those truths?
And Zeno’s paradox proved that a batter will never get a chance to hit a ball thrown to him.
If you can link a mathematical proof to observable reality, it’s a useful tool, but mathematical proofs aren’t reality itself.
No, but that’s not what I said.
If something does not matter
- How do I know it is true?
- Why do I care if it is?
Close. God is consciousness, the sum total of everything is consciousness. We are a part of that consciousness and the whole is a part of us as in a hologram.
We take a physical body in order to separate (seemingly) from the whole to learn about ourselves and who we are.
But none of this is important. What is important is learning to love. Love is powerful, it is the men/women who loved the most that take special places in our history. We revere them highly, and they occupy the top places in our society.