Misguided Belief

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Some because they've found something more tangible.

Prostitutes are tangible. Superficially you can see their mispent symmetry, hear the ambivalence of their whispers, smell their perfume, taste their lipstick, touch their nubile or voluptuous bodies. Genuine article of romantic love, rapport, trust, coalesence of soul with your right opposite number is intangible. Tangible is waay overrated. You die tonight, where does your soul go?

I think we've wandered from the point quite quickly in this thread. The OP was a query as to how believers choose a particular religion, sincerely made. Please try to resist the temptation to showboat your own beliefs.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I think we've wandered from the point quite quickly in this thread. The OP was a query as to how believers choose a particular religion, sincerely made. Please try to resist the temptation to showboat your own beliefs.

Imagined your flexibility might still allow a direct side bar comment to karoly. Sorry.


..............................................


Edit: Believe post 13 on page 1 may have been more on point with your op:

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the dearth of evidence supporting any of the various flavours of religion available, what makes believers choose one sort over another?


Christianity is not a religion. It is a vertical relationship, in which God has done and continues to do the work. All man made religions are counterfeits... ritualistic/belief systems in which man by man's effort seeks to work for and gain the approval of God. Rejection of absolute truth creates a vacuum (mataiotes) in the soul, which eventually either sucks in some substitute or lurches into atheistic denial. A perceived problem with Christianity is the overarching genius simplicity of God's grace plan and the irrelevance of human IQ. Some reject Christ because their intellects are offended. Some because the gift seems too simple.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

Christianity is not a religion. It is a vertical relationship, in which God has done and continues to do the work. All man made religions are counterfeits... ritualistic/belief systems in which man by man's effort seeks to work for and gain the approval of God. Rejection of absolute truth creates a vacuum (mataiotes) in the soul, which eventually either ...[text shortened]... e reject Christ because their intellects are offended. Some because the gift seems too simple.[/b]

It's very difficult to respond reasonably to this post. Of course, clearly, obviously, and by it's very definition, Christianity IS a religion. The rest of this post appears to simply relate your understanding of the nature of your religion. What I'm after is the rationality behind your unwavering belief that your religion is the right one.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the dearth of evidence supporting any of the various flavours of religion available, what makes believers choose one sort over another?

you chose the word 'misguided' in the title to this threadthot...
to me, this indicates you know of a 'guided' belief...
whereas, i have always understood 'belief' to be a thingy that had NO foundation whatsoever...


so,
did you create this lil rock soup fer yer own enjoyment???

or,
would you like to rethink and rephrase???

rookie

Originally posted by rookie54
you chose the word 'misguided' in the title to this threadthot...
to me, this indicates you know of a 'guided' belief...
whereas, i have always understood 'belief' to be a thingy that had NO foundation whatsoever...


so,
did you create this lil rock soup fer yer own enjoyment???

or,
would you like to rethink and rephrase???

rookie

On reflection the name does seem to imply a value judgement doesn't it? I really hadn't intended it this way. It was, obviously, something of a counterpoint to another thread, but the inquiry was and is valid and sincere.

Originally posted by josephw
There's nothing more tangible than truth.

Most of what people believe is just in their head.

Do you think the resurrection is too intangible to be true? Think again.

That "think again" comment obviosly means, "you are wrong ,dear karoly". Doesn't it?
So should I actually think again or should I submit to your views? Really.

I like to pride myself on being open. OPEN.
In the past I've have had my worldview shattered because I WAS open to it.

Maybe you guys should start talking to the greys , who plan to project a hologram of Jesus on a cloud in the near future , so you can back up your claims with some tangible proof.
Some might even be taken by this hologram.
I'll check it out thouroughly, as I do with all things. 😵

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Prostitutes are tangible. Superficially you can see their mispent symmetry, hear the ambivalence of their whispers, smell their perfume, taste their lipstick, touch their nubile or voluptuous bodies. Genuine article of romantic love, rapport, trust, coalesence of soul with your right opposite number is intangible. Tangible is waay overrated. You die tonight, where does your soul go?

My dear GB you can try to manipulate that Foal all you want but all you 'll get will be hard kicks😵

Anyway, methinks tangible is Life, for its environment is ever changing -non tangible are solely the dead beings;

Finally, regarding your question -a question that in my opinion is another cause of suffering projected from your sixth, thus I have heard: after death self neither exists nor does not exist, nor both, not neither. After years of meditation over this, it became my knowledge that in fact everything is real and not real, both real and no real, neither real nor not real😵

Speaking of misquided belief, I just read an article about revized attitudes about early human beings which stated:

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."


Does this revision of the science tend to strengthen the belief in brutish, pre-human primates gradually becoming people or weaken it ?

And it is very funny that all the blame is put on "Victorian" society rather than modern "Evolutionary" convinced society.

"Blame the Victorian age for our goof about pre-historical ape men." I wouldn't be surprised if they end up blaming the weaknesses of gradualism.... on Christians.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the dearth of evidence supporting any of the various flavours of religion available, what makes believers choose one sort over another?

"Given?" That's such a liberal use of the term as to render it meaningless. No such "given" exists--- unless, of course, you're referencing Pentecostalism, Mormonism, JW's, Islam, Rastafarianism, Hinduism, Buddhism or etc..

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the dearth of evidence supporting any of the various flavours of religion available, what makes believers choose one sort over another?

Seems like for the vast majority it ultimately comes down to having a belief system that give them a sense of well-being, i.e., minimizes anxiety and/or maximizes joy. For them, it is not based upon reason. In fact, the desire to keep their sense of well-being limits their ability to (or even renders them incapable of) reason when dealing with the subject.

Naturally their first belief system most often comes from their most immediate stable surroundings (usually parents). If their belief system no longer keeps their sense of well-being above a given threshold for whatever reason, they usually seek out another with the same aim(usually from within their culture).

Originally posted by jaywill
Speaking of misquided belief, I just read an article about revized attitudes about early human beings which stated:

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for exam be surprised if they end up blaming the weaknesses of gradualism.... on Christians.

In my experience, most people who actually study these things have very much higher estimation for the intellect and abilities of our ancestors than the media and the general public. As far as I can gather, the supposedly 'Victorian' attitudes regarding 'brutish ape-men' went out of the window in the academic world along with the idea of the racial and cultural superiority of the western world.

That said, while this may ostensibly appear to weaken the case for human evolution, the genetic evidence is pretty much slam-dunk. Have a look at the chromosome maps for modern humans compared to those of modern chimpanzees. Or, see http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Given?" That's such a liberal use of the term as to render it meaningless. No such "given" exists--- unless, of course, you're referencing Pentecostalism, Mormonism, JW's, Islam, Rastafarianism, Hinduism, Buddhism or etc..

Don't tell me - all of them except yours?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
In my experience, most people who actually study these things have very much higher estimation for the intellect and abilities of our ancestors than the media and the general public. As far as I can gather, the supposedly 'Victorian' attitudes regarding 'brutish ape-men' went out of the window in the academic world along with the idea of the racial ...[text shortened]... those of modern chimpanzees. Or, see http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm.

All that chromosone 'thing-a-me-bob' is the devils work i tell ye.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
All that chromosone 'thing-a-me-bob' is the devils work i tell ye.

Hmm, you make a compelling argument...