Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

If anything ppl are expert in questioning others beliefs...questioning our own beliefs should be the starting point.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If anything ppl are expert in questioning others beliefs...questioning our own beliefs should be the starting point.

I agree.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

.. ...And even if they did know...they disobeyed one time...and suffered (along with all the rest of humanity) the most severe punishment imaginable. . .

Not punishment, Frank. Consequence. No wonder you don't get it.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

. . . .I disagree, you're defending an inference by those in charge of the organization, they cannot be questioned by you because of the sin of apostasy in the JW religion.

Were I to disagree, I would no longer consider myself a JW. In that respect, since I was raised a Catholic, I am most certainly an apostate to Catholicism.

As Finn said recently, we must question our own beliefs first.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Personally I have no religion and therefore am open to all religions. I take a step back in religious conversations as I do not hold a reasonable standpoint in them. But if I am in need of guidance in a moral standpoint I know people from a lot of religions and will ask their opinions. Sometimes there is a consensus and I take that as the rule but other times reason takes over and I go with what feels right to me. Quite frankly I judge all things by the same standards. Everyone believes something different about everything if they didn't we would all go nuts.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Well neo, I'll thank you for letting me have a good look at this, for me, thorny issue and I now feel I understand it more fully. If I made you feel I was accusing you personally I wasn't and I have sympathy and understanding for your position. I'm sure you feel that you don't need either but nevertheless I do. Best wishes to you!

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
.. ...And even if they did know...they disobeyed one time...and suffered (along with all the rest of humanity) the most severe punishment imaginable. . .
Not punishment, Frank. Consequence. No wonder you don't get it.

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

It was punishment, Neo...and it is the kind of punishment that shows the god to be one of the most disgusting gods ever invented by humans. It was punishing people who did not know they were doing wrong...because they had absolutely no idea about the difference between right and wrong. The god had denied them that knowledge...and acknowledges that they did not have that knowledge right here.

But...you are in dread of the god, so if you want to call the punishment "consequences"...be my guest. You can call it strawberry short cake if you want...and if you think it will make the monster less angry.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

If any people are experts in questioning the other people's beliefs ... questioning our own beliefs should be the starting point.

Where did you people get this Questioning from? The Verification and Validation of knowledge ... incl. our own Beliefs, is standard procedure in math logic and knowledge acquisition. Every information that we acquire as our own belief has to be verified & validated before assigning that belief to it (at least to know how much to assign).
My hobby in the recent years was to verify & validate the theory of the Atheists about the creation & evolution of the Universe.
Yes, exactly creation & evolution: at first Big Bang created the space out of nothing and without any access to any energy source, then tired of His well done job left the things in the lurch ... to evolve as they find appropriate.
The Atheists, calling themselves in this way, notwithstanding that they are fanatic believers in the unjustified theory of creation by explosion & development through chaos, verify & validate all the time the theological knowledge ... and somehow fail to verify & validate the fakeness of their own beliefs ... especially in their part 'continuously accelerating expansion' of the universe (whatever that may mean).
We don't even know how does this function of accelerating expansion look like ... in theory, whether it is monotonic acceleration ... or s.th. else.
But they know for sure (with believe exceeding 99%) that the universe is expanding at a rate of expantion tending to infinity (and nobody asks how does that happen).
There is more: if the universe can drive at a speed exceeding the speed of light without any problems why should we contrain ourselves at all to the speed of light?
All that we know about this expansion is some red shift in the IR part of the light spedctrum ... only this and nothing else, which may not be Doppler effect with light at all and could be some other long distance travel light effect that we cannot explain for now.

2 Replies

@Herald,

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/PHOTO/LARGE/common_loon_joshmerril.jpg

1 Reply

@igm,

One thing I remember from before my apostasy;

Pax vobiscum

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . But...you are in dread of the god . . .

What is there for me to dread, Frank? If I am wrong, I look forward to the same fate you anticipate. Nothingness.

If I'm right, perhaps I will enjoy the life promised to Adam and Eve. Not so bad. Either way, I get to enjoy the life I have from day to day, so long as it lasts.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Where is the text (to the picture) - the interpretation of the common loon as a metaphor, for example.
Let's see then what have I understood of the picture.
1. I am too shy ... and avoiding observations to notice that Big Bang has no reasonable ground to be presented as a plausible theory.
2. I don't like to mingle with the crowd ... which is gathering & expanding around the Big Bang pro rate the expansion of the Universe.
3. My arguments & reasoning are harmless, for I don't have the funds and the social position of the people engaged with the maintenance of the expansion & acceleration of space & time, claimed to be sliding somehow under our feet .... tending to infinity.

1 Reply

@Herald,

English is not your native language, is it Bubba?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You noticed?
Seems like an ok guy, though

1 Reply

@neologist,

Well, except for some unwarranted obsessions. I guess i shouldn't care too much, though, as i am merely an atheist, not an Atheist. Also, i'm only an atheist because that's how the god squad thinks.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The story as I read it is about a couple who are very forcefully denied knowledge of what is right and wrong...of what is good and what is evil. Any other interpretation is an absurdity.

Err...you've actually rewritten the Bible here. Likely doing so helps you with your point, but it is dishonest that way. Try 'Good & Evil'.

This is also removing this one part from the context of the whole. In your whole point, you so obviously ignore God telling Adam “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”. Understanding good and evil isn't necessary to understanding consequences.

Quote:

The story as I read it is about a couple who are very forcefully denied knowledge of what is right and wrong

See...you have two interpretations present in this statement :
- 'they were denied' vs 'they weren't given' that knowledge (which is a different viewpoint from denying), and,
- you say 'right & wrong' while the Bible says 'good & evil' which are two different things.

Basically there is nothing to support your implication that they did not know they were going to die if they ate from the tree - there is nothing to support your implication that they did not understand consequences.

As I said earlier, you have a hardline, though extremist would probably be more accurate, interpretation.

Quote:

The stories seem to me to be absurd, but I have no problem with the people who take them as gospel (!).

Are you sure about that? It appears from this thread that you do.

Certainly making a blanket statement of every story being absurd can only be emotionally based, and that you take an extremist interpretation of the Adam and Eve story can only be emotionally based...how then are you able to separate your negative emotions regarding the stories from the people who believe them as Gospel?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . But...you are in dread of the god . . .
What is there for me to dread, Frank? If I am wrong, I look forward to the same fate you anticipate. Nothingness.

I assume you mean "after death."

What on Earth makes you suppose I anticipate "nothingness?"

I have no idea of what happens after death. There may be nothingness...and there may be somethingness. Do not assume that your guesses are my guesses...or that I have any guesses.

Quote:

If I'm right, perhaps I will enjoy the life promised to Adam and Eve.

And if it is taken away with the same brutality and lack of reason...you are back to nothingness.

You dread that god.

Quote:

Not so bad. Either way, I get to enjoy the life I have from day to day, so long as it lasts.

And I sincerely hope you do enjoy it. I hope everyone does as much as possible.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The story as I read it is about a couple who are very forcefully denied knowledge of what is right and wrong...of what is good and what is evil. Any other interpretation is an absurdity.

Err...you've actually rewritten the Bible here. Likely doing so helps you with your point, but it is dishonest. Try 'Good & Evil'.

I did use "good and evil." You quoted it.

Quote:

This is also removing this one part from the context of the whole. In your whole point, you so obviously ignore God telling Adam “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”. Understanding good and evil isn't necessary to understanding consequences.

Nice try. No cigar.

Without understanding the good and evil...they did not truly understand consequences. And without understanding good and evil...they had no way of knowing that the consequences were something to be avoided.

This is as silly as a Mother Goose story...in fact, even sillier. Stop defending it.

Quote:

Quote:
The story as I read it is about a couple who are very forcefully denied knowledge of what is right and wrong
See...you have two interpretations present in this statement :
- 'they were denied' vs 'they weren't given' that knowledge (which is a different viewpoint from denying), and,
- you say 'right & wrong' while the Bible says 'good & evil' which are two different things.

They were denied the knowledge is a reasonable way to describe the circumstances. Some Bibles use "good and evil" some use "good and bad"..."right and wrong" works fine. The words were originally something in Hebrew...and the translations of this sort do not matter except to someone trying to make the story seem something other than what is told.

It is a silly story about a sting perpetrated by a god on two people.

Quote:

Basically there is nothing to support your implication that they did not know they were going to die if they ate from the tree - there is nothing to support your implication that they did not understand consequences.

You mean except for the words written there?

C'mon. They did not know there was anything wrong with disobeying...and the "consequence" easily could have been considered a blessing in their minds. Frankly, living with a god who would do the crap that god did to them...death probably would be a blessing.

But it is a fable...a very silly fable.

Quote:

As I said earlier, you have a hardline, though extremist would probably be more accurate, interpretation.

Curiously, I would prefer the word "realistic."

Quote:

Quote:
The stories seem to me to be absurd, but I have no problem with the people who take them as gospel (!).

Are you sure about that? It appears from this thread that you do.

Not to me.

Quote:

Certainly making a blanket statement of every story being absurd can only be emotionally based, and that you take an extremist interpretation of the Adam and Eve story can only be emotionally based...how then are you able to separate your negative emotions regarding the stories from the people who believe them as Gospel?

Once again, I would prefer "realistic" to emotional. But you are free to deal with the silly story as you see fit.

QUESTION: Are you help brought in to ease the pressure on Neo?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Without understanding the good and evil...they did not truly understand consequences. And without understanding good and evil...they had no way of knowing that the consequences were something to be avoided.

Err...sure....if you say so...God told them something they weren't able to comprehend (Adam that he'd die if he ate from the tree)...so he had no way of knowing it was wrong (hence why 'good & evil' differs from 'right & wrong'), and no way of knowing he'd die...

Quote:

Stop defending it.

Your original question to me was about other possible interpretations.

It appears that you forget your question, and then view answers to your question as defensiveness...your response is rather clearly the result of your emotions.

Quote:

They were denied the knowledge is a reasonable way to describe the circumstances

Yep.

Your original question to me to provide 'other possible interpretations'.

Quote:

QUESTION: Are you help brought in to ease the pressure on Neo?

Conspiracy theories now?

You do understand I'm not Christian, right? (I grew up in a Christian Church, but haven't been one for 20 years)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

You do understand I'm not Christian, right? (I grew up in a Christian Church, but haven't been one for 20 years)

OK maybe you do believe in being intellectually honest and if so are you willing to admit you are still a theist? My guess would be either Jewish or Islamic, could I be correct?

1 Reply

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know