In an attempt to get this thread back on topic (as lurking here has offered me hours of entertainment) does anyone know if there is another name for someone who is a polytheistic agnostic?
Despite the links you provided, CJ, I still believe the stance on homosexuality does divide very clearly along religious lines.
We need to keep this thread away from such contentious topics.
And talk about religion instead ;)
Okie-dokie.
In the bad old days, when someone was a victim of violence they were generally considered to be at fault for provoking their attacker. This was true especially if the victim was a woman or some other species of icky subhuman. It's essentially the same mentality behind the gay panic defense and behind arguments that try to legitimize rape. But surely we're past that, at least when it comes to truly outrageous things like death threats, genital mutilation, and the like?
We all know who Ayaan Hirsi-Ali is, right? Author, politician, atheist activist? The woman whose Muslim family had a clitoridectomy performed on her when she was five years old? The woman whose Muslim family tried to force her into an arranged marriage with her cousin? The woman who, for several years now, has had to live under extraordinarily heightened security, due to serious threats on her life from Muslim extremists because of her outspoken criticism of Islam?You'd think that if anyone on this planet had a right to speak out with passionate rage at religion, it'd be Ayaan Hirsi-Ali.
But apparently not. Apparently, Hirsi-Ali's passionate rage at religion comes about because "she never quite outgrew her rebellious teenager phase." Apparently, Hirsi-Ali's problems with her family stem from the fact that she can't bite her tongue and say "I love you" -- and not from, oh, say, the fact that they cut off her clitoris when she was five, and then tried to force her into an arranged marriage.
I tried to read the original piece, but it was too horrible to keep on with. It's linked in the blog post if you have a stronger stomach than I do.
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic (as lurking here has offered me hours of entertainment) does anyone know if there is another name for someone who is a polytheistic agnostic?
At one time, I considered that god/gods/the force revealed him(it)self through all religions. Whatever you believed determined what happened to you afterwards.
Maybe we need a Civil Gay Discussion thread.
There is nothing civil about high fashion.
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic (as lurking here has offered me hours of entertainment) does anyone know if there is another name for someone who is a polytheistic agnostic?
Just agnostic, so far as I'm aware. I'm not sure what the difference would be that one is trying to capture, though. Did you have something specific in mind?
Maybe we need a Civil Gay Discussion thread.
It would run out of qualifying participants before it started.
Maybe we need a Civil Gay Discussion thread.It would run out of qualifying participants before it started.
One word
Single syllableA female canine animal, especially a dog
Rhymes with 'itch'
Maybe we need a Civil Gay Discussion thread.It would run out of qualifying participants before it started.One word
Single syllable
A female canine animal, especially a dog
Rhymes with 'itch'
Rentdog. :)
|
Correct. Or at least that's how I approach it exegetically. I certainly don't keep a typical 'nuclear' family lifestyle myself.Arg, I just noticed that the post monster got my last post...
Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
Nuclear families are for Captain Atom and the Fantastic Four.
Nuclear families are for Captain Atom and the Fantastic Four.Correct. Or at least that's how I approach it exegetically. I certainly don't keep a typical 'nuclear' family lifestyle myself.Arg, I just noticed that the post monster got my last post...
Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
Probably "Agnostic Theism"
Here I was thinking of that and didn't say it. Curse you for reading my mind and doing me one better, Moff! :)
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic (as lurking here has offered me hours of entertainment) does anyone know if there is another name for someone who is a polytheistic agnostic?Just agnostic, so far as I'm aware. I'm not sure what the difference would be that one is trying to capture, though. Did you have something specific in mind?
Well, I'm not sure as to the identity of the gods but given the chaotic nature of the universe I Believe (like faith believe, not “I think”) there is more than one. Just wanted to know if there was a title for what I believe to separate me from the Agnostics who are monotheists, but just don’t know which religion to follow, and Agnostics who don’t know if there’s one or multiple gods.
|
Well, I'm not sure as to the identity of the gods but given the chaotic nature of the universe I Believe (like faith believe, not “I think”) there is more than one. Just wanted to know if there was a title for what I believe to separate me from the Agnostics who are monotheists, but just don’t know which religion to follow, and Agnostics who don’t know if there’s one or multiple gods.In an attempt to get this thread back on topic (as lurking here has offered me hours of entertainment) does anyone know if there is another name for someone who is a polytheistic agnostic?Just agnostic, so far as I'm aware. I'm not sure what the difference would be that one is trying to capture, though. Did you have something specific in mind?
Sounds more like straight polytheist to me.
Just out of curiosity, you say you're "not sure as to the identity ..." How would you know which ones are real and which ones aren't?
Well, I'm not sure as to the identity of the gods but given the chaotic nature of the universe I Believe (like faith believe, not “I think”) there is more than one. Just wanted to know if there was a title for what I believe to separate me from the Agnostics who are monotheists, but just don’t know which religion to follow, and Agnostics who don’t know if there’s one or multiple gods.In an attempt to get this thread back on topic (as lurking here has offered me hours of entertainment) does anyone know if there is another name for someone who is a polytheistic agnostic?Just agnostic, so far as I'm aware. I'm not sure what the difference would be that one is trying to capture, though. Did you have something specific in mind?Sounds more like straight polytheist to me.
Just out of curiosity, you say you're "not sure as to the identity ..." How would you know which ones are real and which ones aren't?
I don't, however as I don't believe the gods are the types to answer prayers so I don't really think it matters if I know thier names or not.
|
|
I don't, however as I don't believe the gods are the types to answer prayers so I don't really think it matters if I know thier names or not.
Sounds more like straight polytheist to me.Just out of curiosity, you say you're "not sure as to the identity ..." How would you know which ones are real and which ones aren't?
Sounds like weak-type agnosticism coupled with polytheism. You have no direct knowledge of these beings, but assume many.
Just wanted to know if there was a title for what I believe to separate me from the Agnostics who are monotheists, but just don’t know which religion to follow, and Agnostics who don’t know if there’s one or multiple gods.
I admit it's a novel situation, at least for those of us who grew up in monotheistic environments. The original formulation of agnosticism was something to the effect of "I believe in God, but consider him ultimately unknowable and questions about him thus impossible to answer." Adding an s on the end of God doesn't seem like a big distinction in the sense of being agnostic, though it's certainly novel.
But I'm one of those who thinks agnosticism is not an intermediate between atheism and theism but rather a separate descriptor entirely. I know of agnostics who disagree. They might have a different answer for you.
Just wanted to know if there was a title for what I believe to separate me from the Agnostics who are monotheists, but just don’t know which religion to follow, and Agnostics who don’t know if there’s one or multiple gods.I admit it's a novel situation, at least for those of us who grew up in monotheistic environments. The original formulation of agnosticism was something to the effect of "I believe in God, but consider him ultimately unknowable and questions about him thus impossible to answer." Adding an s on the end of God doesn't seem like a big distinction in the sense of being agnostic, though it's certainly novel.
But I'm one of those who thinks agnosticism is not an intermediate between atheism and theism but rather a separate descriptor entirely. I know of agnostics who disagree. They might have a different answer for you.
Agnostics will say that they don't know the answer and neither do you. :p
Agnostics will say that they don't know the answer and neither do you. :p
Yeah, I've heard that one plenty of times. :)
I'm mostly a gnostic atheist insofar as applies to the deities anybody seems to actually believe in on any regular basis. That's the type who create universes, meddle around in them, and seem obsessed with our sex lives. I've got decent reasons to consider all these guys fictional.
But a deity which has never, will never, can never do anything that amounts to interaction with the universe? Who is by definition unobservable in its own right? Agnostic atheism for me. There's no good reason to believe in such a deity, and in fact by definition can't be, but by the same token there can never be evidence that such a creature doesn't exist since the proposition suggests no testable claims. Not many people want to stand up and believe in a god that can make no difference to anybody, though. Seems like wasted effort.
Not many people want to stand up and believe in a god that can make no difference to anybody, though. Seems like wasted effort.
I don't know about that. It could provide some real comfort to some.
It doesn't change what is around them (thus allowing them to cope with the world as it is).
It gives them a comfort in knowing there are answers, even if they or no one else can ever know them.
It allows them an idea of an afterlife and allows them to imagine the qualifications that will land them there (thus allowing them to determine if they make it and the people they despise don't).
It allows them to oppose organized religious pressure and theocracies.
It also gives them protection that some they might feel atheists lack (freedom to religion; after all some people might argue "how can you have freedom to non-religion?").
All the benefits of organized religion, none of the expectations.
I could see how it would be really tempting for some people. It wouldn't dictate their lives but they would also have a really nice concept to lean on when they needed it.
|
Although this question was most surely asked several thousand posts ago, I missed it. So, if you’ll humor me…
How do those of religious persuasion explain other religions (i.e. why doesn’t everyone who believes believe the same thing)? Can any single religion claim to be THE religion, and if so, the implication would be that everyone else is wrong or at least misguided. And if every other religion makes that same claim, how can anyone know who’s right or if everyone is misguided?
Before I answer, and it will take some thinking on my part before I do. What were the previous answers?
How do those of religious persuasion explain other religions (i.e. why doesn’t everyone who believes believe the same thing)?
I had a Ba'hai friend who told me there was only one religion, just different ways of looking at it (God is magnificent enough that some people see him as Allah, and others as a whole pantheon of divinities, and they're both right as far as it goes, but they're just not seeing the whole picture because He's too big for the human mind to grasp at once -- if I understood correctly). The problem is that the Quran is pretty clear that Hindus are unbelievers, and the Bible is pretty clear that Christ is the only Way, etc. -- in other words, all the holy books pretty much specifically say that all the other ones are wrong. So the Ba'hai view works only if the holy books of the various religions are not only not inerrant, but downright incorrect. Which is fine with them, but not so much with the adherents of the various religions with holy books.
|
|
How do those of religious persuasion explain other religions (i.e. why doesn’t everyone who believes believe the same thing)?I had a Ba'hai friend who told me there was only one religion, just different ways of looking at it (God is magnificent enough that some people see him as Allah, and others as a whole pantheon of divinities, and they're both right as far as it goes, but they're just not seeing the whole picture because He's too big for the human mind to grasp at once -- if I understood correctly). The problem is that the Quran is pretty clear that Hindus are unbelievers, and the Bible is pretty clear that Christ is the only Way, etc. -- in other words, all the holy books pretty much specifically say that all the other ones are wrong. So the Ba'hai view works only if the holy books of the various religions are not only not inerrant, but downright incorrect. Which is fine with them, but not so much with the adherents of the various religions with holy books.
Ba'hai temples are gorgeous! The Shrine of the Bab in Haifa is quite possibly one of the most beautiful places in the world, IMO.
It doesn't change what is around them (thus allowing them to cope with the world as it is).
I read this as it making no difference whatsoever. Nothing changes, so who cares? How could such a belief be of any consequence? I plain don't get it.
It gives them a comfort in knowing there are answers, even if they or no one else can ever know them.
How can something that is permanently and perfectly unknowable, which has never interacted in any way with the universe, even potentially provide answers? Such a God wouldn't know any, and couldn't. None of his followers could be any better. At best that seems like a wash to me.
It allows them an idea of an afterlife and allows them to imagine the qualifications that will land them there (thus allowing them to determine if they make it and the people they despise don't).
We're not talking about the kind of deity I'm talking about if he's the sort that fetches your consciousness off into life after death. That's interacting with the universe again.
It allows them to oppose organized religious pressure and theocracies.
That one is decent, but I don't quite see how it follows. Surely having any kind of religion weakens one's desire to resist organized religious pressure, since possessing a religion is the chief thing that makes one vulnerable to it in itself. An outright theocracy such as operates in the US, Saudi Arabia, or the like would of course be a different story. But I don't know how one gets from X exists but is unknowable to we should not base government on X. A faith claim is a faith claim, after all.
I'll grant that one might still oppose a theocracy while being religious, though it's of course vanishingly rare in any socially dominant religion. (Witness CJ's complete contentedness with the government telling him when to pray.)
It also gives them protection that some they might feel atheists lack (freedom to religion; after all some people might argue "how can you have freedom to non-religion?").
I suppose so.
All of this seems extremely thin to me, but I suppose for someone with radically different values it would potentially appeal.
How do those of religious persuasion explain other religions (i.e. why doesn’t everyone who believes believe the same thing)? Can any single religion claim to be THE religion, and if so, the implication would be that everyone else is wrong or at least misguided.
The claim that any one religion has an exclusive monopoly on truth is mostly the preserve of monotheists. A polytheist would potentially have no trouble with agreeing that his gods rule over him and someone else's gods rule over them, even simply as a matter of geography.
And if every other religion makes that same claim, how can anyone know who’s right or if everyone is miguided?
That question informs most of my posting here. :)
Before I answer, and it will take some thinking on my part before I do.
I have to say, CJ, I am a little disappointed you have not already considered this. I believe several pages earlier (maybe it was another thread), you were quite dismissive of people who based, at least some of their atheistic views, on this very principle. And yet, you have not fully considered the ramifications?
|
|
Before I answer, and it will take some thinking on my part before I do.I have to say, CJ, I am a little disappointed you have not already considered this. I believe several pages earlier (maybe it was another thread), you were quite dismissive of people who based, at least some of their atheistic views, on this very principle. And yet, you have not fully considered the ramifications?
Actually I have however getting it down on paper in such a way as to make my thoughts on the matter, not sure what the word I am looking for is, complete, understandable. I am finding harder then I would normally do. Dismissive, I do not think so. Maybe confused and at times irritated by. I think though that this is most of us. It is hard to see things from another's point of view. Most assuredly when it is one that is diametrically opposed to ones own view point. I do get upset with poor logic or poorly worded responses.
This question being posed is one of which is basically, have you thought about the other guys point of view and if so why do you choose differently.
|
|
Although this question was most surely asked several thousand posts ago, I missed it. So, if you’ll humor me…
How do those of religious persuasion explain other religions (i.e. why doesn’t everyone who believes believe the same thing)? Can any single religion claim to be THE religion, and if so, the implication would be that everyone else is wrong or at least misguided. And if every other religion makes that same claim, how can anyone know who’s right or if everyone is misguided?
I explain other religions as impractical or misguided. While we can make an assumption that people just came up with religion or said beliefs I do not think some of these were just out of thin air.
Can a single religion claim to be THE RELIGION. in short No. Even Catholics claim that the Jews are our "Elder Brothers in faith."
Some religious beliefs how ever are mutually exclusive. One can not be true and the other at the same time.
Well I think part of the issue is seeing the actions of said group and research into the actual beliefs and history of the different religions.
Many people, even atheists and agnostics can be spiritual. This is a personal journey. A religion is a community.
Sorry this is about as ordered as I can put it this morning. Having a really bad day.
|
|
Although this question was most surely asked several thousand posts ago, I missed it. So, if you’ll humor me…
How do those of religious persuasion explain other religions (i.e. why doesn’t everyone who believes believe the same thing)? Can any single religion claim to be THE religion, and if so, the implication would be that everyone else is wrong or at least misguided. And if every other religion makes that same claim, how can anyone know who’s right or if everyone is miguided?
I don't know if this question, as written, has been addressed. Variations on a theme, certainly, but not quite worded this way.
I don't know that it has an "answer" -- at least not a good one.
"Explain"? I've heard it suggested at times that it's the devil's doing. While there may be some truth to it, it isn't a good answer, it's rather dismissive, and doesn't really address the problem. I feel that most (all?) religions at least attempt to answer questions many of us want answers to -- "Why are we here?", "How did we come to be?", "Where are we going?", "What do we do?", etc. At least that's largely where most religions come from or why.
"Can any religion claim to be THE religion?" Sure. In many ways, that's no different than people claiming to be "the best". And, yes -- the implication is that everyone else is "wrong". Although, in some cases it's not quite "wrong". It's just not "the best".
(I'm not claiming that this is "right" -- just that it is. A lot of this is more psychological in nature. People believe things for any number of reasons. Many times they don't go through the motions of trying to determine which is more right than something else. After that, they will often try and justify why their's is more right than something else but the decision has already been made. But people wouldn't believe something that they felt was wrong.)
"How can anyone know who's right...?" Not sure that there's a good answer for that. There are enough differences between religions that I have a hard time believing that they are all right. I don't feel that they all lead to the same place. They teach different things as important. They may all attempt to answer the same things, but they come up with vastly different conclusions and answers. Goals are vastly different. So, outside of being preached to what is "right", all I can suggest is to look at the differences and see which one jives with you the most.
Before I answer, and it will take some thinking on my part before I do.I have to say, CJ, I am a little disappointed you have not already considered this. I believe several pages earlier (maybe it was another thread), you were quite dismissive of people who based, at least some of their atheistic views, on this very principle. And yet, you have not fully considered the ramifications?Actually I have however getting it down on paper in such a way as to make my thoughts on the matter, not sure what the word I am looking for is, complete, understandable. I am finding harder then I would normally do. Dismissive, I do not think so. Maybe confused and at times irritated by. I think though that this is most of us. It is hard to see things from another's point of view. Most assuredly when it is one that is diametrically opposed to ones own view point. I do get upset with poor logic or poorly worded responses.
This question being posed is one of which is basically, have you thought about the other guys point of view and if so why do you choose differently.
In other words, CJ needs to take some time to choose his words wisely and precisely out of concern that some of us may wield Occam's Razor and approach it hack 'n' slash roll-play style. Word, yo. :p
Sorry this is about as ordered as I can put it this morning. Having a really bad day.
I am sorry to hear you are having a really bad day. I hope that it gets better for you soon. Thank you for your response. I do think I understand where you are coming from now.
Back to the current discussion, I feel it is important because it sets a precedent. If believers and non-believers agree that some religions are made-up, then it is entirely possible all religions are made-up. Please note, this is not proof in and of itself. It is merely reasonable doubt, if you will.
For me, the next logical step is to ask is how can you tell the made-up religions from the non-made-up religions. The problem for me is that they all look pretty much the same. They all ask you to accept the fantastical based only on faith. So why should I accept something on faith that is likely just made-up?
In other words, CJ needs to take some time to choose his words wisely and precisely out of concern that some of us may wield Occam's Razor and approach it hack 'n' slash roll-play style. Word, yo. :p
It may be CJ realizes how hypocritical it would be to ask us Atheist to treat his beliefs with respect if he does not respect certain other religions.
|
|
They all ask you to accept the fantastical based only on faith.
You've got a lot of good questions and good points. Not sure that there is an answer since any answer that really can be given isn't really concrete or logical. It really is a personal experience.
However, I took the above quote out. This is wrong. At least partially. Many Christians may say that all you need is "faith". This is wrong and it doesn't work anyway. Every Christian that I know doesn't believe "the fatastical" based only on faith. They have faith, but that's not the only reason they believe. Maybe it's "splitting hairs", but I really don't like that idea and feel that it is false.
Other than that, carry on.
For me, the next logical step is to ask is how can you tell the made-up religions from the non-made-up religions. The problem for me is that they all look pretty much the same. They all ask you to accept the fantastical based only on faith. So why should I accept something on faith that is likely just made-up?
For a fool, you sometimes make a lot of sense. Have a biscuit. <scratches behind ears>
Shall I substitute 'god' for 'fantastical' so it sounds less dismissive? That was certainly not my intention.
So, in your case, belief comes from faith and something else? What is this something else? I believe it has been hinted at, by others at least, that some unexplained events in their life have led to belief.
If that is the case, then I think it is still faith. An unexplained event does not explain something. In fact, by its very definition, it can not explain anything. To believe an unexplained event is the result of something is faith. There is no evidence to support anything else. Otherwise, it would be an explained event.
Suppose you were raised in an Hindu family. Then further suppose you had the same unexplained event. Does it seem reasonable you would attribute this event to Krishna instead of the Judeo-Christian god? Based on this, would it not follow that is because of your faith in one god over another is the deciding factor?
Of course this gets even more dangerous because we are back to Samnell's point that belief is largely defined by surrounding culture. It suggests that the beliefs you hold so strongly to are little more than a factor of nurture. I do not know about anyone else, but that would be a pretty scary thought for me.
And a shade of truth, to be frank.
... I think though that this is most of us. It is hard to see things from another's point of view. ...
Even if not accomplished the goal is worthwhile.
|
|
Shall I substitute 'god' for 'fantastical' so it sounds less dismissive? That was certainly not my intention.
So, in your case, belief comes from faith and something else? What is this something else? I believe it has been hinted at, by others at least, that some unexplained events in their life have led to belief.
If that is the case, then I think it is still faith. An unexplained event does not explain something. In fact, by its very definition, it can not explain anything. To believe an unexplained event is the result of something is faith. There is no evidence to support anything else. Otherwise, it would be an explained event.
I didn't feel that it was "dismissive". Not sure what you are talking about (but then I'm getting used to your posts).
To me -- Faith = Belief. So saying that one leads to the either seems odd to me. They are essentially the same thing.
Sometimes it's an "unexplained event" and sometimes it isn't. And that "something else" varies greatly from person to person.
As I hinted at before, the "unexplained event" in my life only helped to strengthen the faith that was already there. It wasn't and isn't really the source of my faith.
And forget the "unexplained event" thing. It's a personal thing. You have absolutely no reason to believe what I went through. I don't believe (or have faith) because of what I went through. So I'm not sure why anyone should expect you to. (My experience may help me to believe but it's not why.) If you have an "unexplained" event happen in your life, it's up to you to figure out what you will believe about it.
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.
I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
In the end it's a personal experience. And I have faith that if God reveals himself to you that there will be no question in your mind where it came from.
I didn't feel that it was "dismissive". Not sure what you are talking about (but then I'm getting used to your posts).
On reading your response, it seemed to me I came off as dismissive by using the word 'fantastical'.
As I hinted at before, the "unexplained event" in my life only helped to strengthen the faith that was already there. It wasn't and isn't really the source of my faith.
So what is the source?
However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles.
Obviously, I am going to be quite skeptical of miracles. From my perspective, miracles are part of the culture and, therefore, only serve to emphasize Sam's point. Obviously, neither of us is pointing to UFO sightings and suggesting those are proof of extra-terrestrials. If we chalk up close encounters of the third kind as unexplained events and/or questionable retellings why not miracles?
I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
Huh? How do they clearly point to the Judeo-Christian god?
I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.Huh? How do they clearly point to the Judeo-Christian god?
I think it requires a leap of faith and a cleverly grilled cheese sammich? :p
With reference to what you and Samnell say about culture -- initially I would agree with you. However, doing a quick Google search, it seems like Christianity (almost exclusively) has a monopoly (or at least a rather vested interest) in miracles. Here's a site that seems to mirror my thoughts a little more than others. Especially with comments like "the problem is that I've heard it all before...". I saw another article that talked about documented miracles and that they were being contested -- of course not by the people directly affected by the miracles.I've heard of quite a number of miracles that happen around places of other faiths -- but those miracles point to the Judeo-Christian God - clearly.
Sorry you lost me there.
|
|
So what is the source?
A number of things. And a lot that I haven't really sat down to make a list. Things that range from the tangible (people who have made a difference in my life) to the intangible (warm fuzzies).
I live in Colorado Springs. I see Pikes Peak every day. I love waterfalls. Pikes Peak eventually looses its snow -- even at 14k feet. Yet the water/streams/rivers around it still run. How? "There are springs that come up from under the ground." At 13 thousand to 14 thousand feet? I know that there are very logical and predictable reasons for it. It's still beautiful and amazing to me that water is forced up out of the ground at around 13+ thousand feet (not at lower elevations) to create streams and rivers that flow all year round that ultimately water huge portions of Western and Southern US. It's wonderful, beautiful, cool, and it works. You believe that it all happened and works due to chance -- I have a hard time believing that. Even though we have "explanations" to how or why. And that's only one "source".
Obviously, I am going to be quite skeptical of miracles.
And you should. As I said, you should not believe because of something that happens to someone else.
Huh? How do they clearly point to the Judeo-Christian god?
Don't know exactly. It varies by the incident. Typically it ends up being a conversion incident. Sometimes it's at a Christian "event" but often times it's not. You typically won't read about those as much though. Many of those experiences are in areas where being a Christian is less ... acceptable ... and so they may need to keep a lower profile. This is happening a lot in Muslim countries. And is interesting to me, because I have a similar question -- why don't they think that the experience is from Allah? Not sure, but for some reason they don't.
I think it requires a leap of faith and a cleverly grilled cheese sammich? :p
I always think of Beastmaster when Sharak snatched the child from the fire and the priest says, "See? Ar has spoken! He wants your children!"
All you need is the right spin.
So what is the source?A number of things. And a lot that I haven't really sat down to make a list. Things that range from the tangible (people who have made a difference in my life) to the intangible (warm fuzzies).
I live in Colorado Springs. I see Pikes Peak every day. I love waterfalls. Pikes Peak eventually looses its snow -- even at 14k feet. Yet the water/streams/rivers around it still run. How? "There are springs that come up from under the ground." At 13 thousand to 14 thousand feet? I know that there are very logical and predictable reasons for it. It's still beautiful and amazing to me that water is forced up out of the ground at around 13+ thousand feet (not at lower elevations) to create streams and rivers that flow all year round that ultimately water huge portions of Western and Southern US. It's wonderful, beautiful, cool, and it works. You believe that it all happened and works due to chance -- I have a hard time believing that. Even though we have "explanations" to how or why. And that's only one "source".
Obviously, I am going to be quite skeptical of miracles.And you should. As I said, you should not believe because of something that happens to someone else.
Huh? How do they clearly point to the Judeo-Christian god?Don't know exactly. It varies by the incident. Typically it ends up being a conversion incident. Sometimes it's at a Christian "event" but often times it's not. You typically won't read about those as much though. Many of those experiences are in areas where being a Christian is less ... acceptable ... and so they may need to keep a lower profile. This is happening a lot in Muslim countries. And is interesting to me, because I have a similar question -- why don't they think that the experience is from Allah? Not sure, but for some reason they don't.
Why is Krishna not the source? Or Woden? Or the Tao? Or Baal? Or Ea? Or Apsu? No offense Moff, but there's nothing you've said there that would make it purely a Judeo-Christian source. Clearly. ;)
I’ve yet to see a 'miracle' that couldn’t just as easily be explained as the work of father Odin or the FSM as it could as being the work of a Judo-Christian god.