The difference between philosophy and religion.

Religion itself was never the issue with me, but rather the conditions under which it's embraced.

Is believing in God important to those who do?

Assuming it is, what other very important thing might they believe on the exact same quality of evidence?

The practical thing is to process what we observe, not ponder possibilities that don't conform to natural possibility.

Yes, we discover more about what may be possible every day,
but we've discovered nothing that even hints at the likelihood d of a supreme being.

Then we make it worse by suggesting a deity that's both omnipotent and all-loving,
where mere observation of the universe proves beyond doubt that those things could not have been concurrently true.
 
Religion itself was never the issue with me, but rather the conditions under which it's embraced.

Is believing in God important to those who do?

Assuming it is, what other very important thing might they believe on the exact same quality of evidence?

The practical thing is to process what we observe, not ponder possibilities that don't conform to natural possibility.

Yes, we discover more about what may be possible every day,
but we've discovered nothing that even hints at the likelihood d of a supreme being.

Then we make it worse by suggesting a deity that's both omnipotent and all-loving,
where mere observation of the universe proves beyond doubt that those things could not have been concurrently true.

Good comments there, thank you.

Why is there suffering? Do people choose to not obey God? It is cruel to judge those who suffer as choosing it.
 
Religion itself was never the issue with me, but rather the conditions under which it's embraced.

Is believing in God important to those who do?

Assuming it is, what other very important thing might they believe on the exact same quality of evidence?

The practical thing is to process what we observe, not ponder possibilities that don't conform to natural possibility.

Yes, we discover more about what may be possible every day,
but we've discovered nothing that even hints at the likelihood d of a supreme being.

Then we make it worse by suggesting a deity that's both omnipotent and all-loving,
where mere observation of the universe proves beyond doubt that those things could not have been concurrently true.
A good point, but here is my two cents

Observation and sensory perception are obviously the primary portals through which we experience what we percieve to be reality.

Although much of it just boils down to inference --> nobody has ever actually seen, and never will see a Higgs boson.

It also seems pretty clear to me that our existence encompasses more than sensory observation. There is no scientific experiment, no mass spectrometer, no physical sensory organs which can, or ever will explain justice, fairness, equality, musical composition, art, imagination, creativity, literature.
 
Allow me to use the BidenPresident criteria for "acceptable knowledge"

Religion is dogmatic and condemns non-believers.

Philosophy liberates.
You've never read any religious scholars, not Augustine, not Zhuangzi, not Boethius, not Laozi, none of the Indian scriptures, so you are not in a position to say or know.
 
Cypress told me he doubts Jesus was the Messiah the son of God.
That tells me all I need to know.

He was human. During his life he was probably a Jewish teacher and apocalyptic prophet.

Jewish apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting one. So the question in my mind is why he ultimately stood out from the background noise and why his life and death was so inspirational to so many people.

That is the question there is no definitive answer for.
 
During his life he was probably a Jewish teacher and apocalyptic prophet.

Jewish apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine, so the question in my mind is why he ultimately stood out from the background noise and why his life and death was so inspirational to so many people.

That is the question there is no definitive answer for.

Doesn't work like that!
Thomas Aquinas said it best
Jesus was either Liare,Lunatic,or LORD!
 
He was human. During his life he was probably a Jewish teacher and apocalyptic prophet.

Jewish apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting one. So the question in my mind is why he ultimately stood out from the background noise and why his life and death was so inspirational to so many people.

That is the question there is no definitive answer for.

You can never explain away Pentecost and the Holy Spirit!
 
He was human. During his life he was probably a Jewish teacher and apocalyptic prophet.

Jewish apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting one. So the question in my mind is why he ultimately stood out from the background noise and why his life and death was so inspirational to so many people.

That is the question there is no definitive answer for.

Just admit it you're a nonbeliever,and as such,can't comprehend the meaning of the Messiah!
 
Doesn't work like that!
Thomas Aquinas said it best
Jesus was either Liare,Lunatic,or LORD!

Doesn't have to be one of those three. There have been other similarly inspirational human figures in history.

Siddhartha Gautama, Muhammed, Laozi, Confucius.

I think it comes down to how inspirational and instructive the story of their lives and teachings were.
 
Doesn't have to be one of those three. There have been other similarly inspirational human figures in history.

Siddhartha Gautama, Muhammed, Laozi, Confucius.

I think it comes down to how inspirational and instructive the story of their lives and teachings were.

None of them can get the Passover Angel to Passover you at the Judgement!OIP.jpeg
 
Back
Top