"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
The new testament is based on rumours. Old testament is jewish mythology.
Based on rumours? The authors were supposedly there when it happened. Either they simply wrote what they observed, or they were embellishing facts. It's a pretty ridiculous claim to say the whole thing is just chapter after chapter of "Yeah, I heard this happened, so that's probably true."
Also, avoid the word mythology. The word implies fiction. Legend, maybe. But considering a very large number of people believe the events that took place, you can't completely write it off as myth.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Hyena wrote:
Based on rumours? The authors were supposedly there when it happened. Either they simply wrote what they observed, or they were embellishing facts.
The scriptures and gospels were definitely NOT written right after the fact, or even close enough to the point where exaggeration and whatnot couldn't have seeped in. I'm not saying that the works aren't true or anything, but I have a hard time remembering what I said to my room mates a few hours ago.
The scriptures and gospels were definitely NOT written right after the fact, or even close enough to the point where exaggeration and whatnot couldn't have seeped in. I'm not saying that the works aren't true or anything, but I have a hard time remembering what I said to my room mates a few hours ago.
That doesn't invalidate what I said. "Based on rumours" implies they weren't even witnesses to the events.
I'm still taking a neutral seat in this argument. I'm not trying to offend anyone. I just think that we should show respect for each others' beliefs and not throw out wild claims (or at least word things carefully so they are not easily misconstrued).
I'm pretty sure that the Apostles weren't witness to everything that was in the Gospels.
Specifically who? The Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right? Those four authors were witnesses to what they wrote, for the most part. There are small segments written about times when Jesus was alone, in which case I'd assume they were told by Jesus himself.
Is there something specific you're referencing? I'm not sure I understand.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
The one part that comes to mind is when Jesus is doing his thing on a sunday, and the herodian preists are watching him. He goes in to a church and a blind man asks for help. Jesus asks the priests if he is allowed to heal on the Sabbath, and they give no response. He goes ahead and heals the man, and the priests begin to plot against him.
None of the 4 Apostles were there for that, I don't recall. Also, as you stated, anything in the Gospels that the Apostles didn't witness was described to them by Jesus. Therefore, how is it possible that we can accept a second-hand telling of a situation that serves to benefit the initial narrarator? Isn't that practically rumor?
Well, at least now I understand your point better. I wouldn't say that's the same thing as rumour, although generally speaking second-hand information is less viable. Saying the whole basis of the new testament is rumour is a little different.
The debate comes down to arguing about the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you want to read about that, check this page, as typing all of that out myself would take too long.
Zurreco wrote:
The scriptures and gospels were definitely NOT written right after the fact, or even close enough to the point where exaggeration and whatnot couldn't have seeped in. I'm not saying that the works aren't true or anything, but I have a hard time remembering what I said to my room mates a few hours ago.
Actually, "exaggeration and whatnot" would count as untruth. Therefore, you are saying that the works aren't true.
Hyena wrote:
Those four authors were witnesses to what they wrote, for the most part.
From what the Bible says, Mark and Luke apparently became disciples later. However, they both worked with Paul and had contact with the Apostles. BTW, the Apostles were the 12 disciples who were with Jesus while He lived on earth. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. See Acts 1:15-26 for more info on this.
Zurreco wrote:
The one part that comes to mind is when Jesus is doing his thing on a sunday, and the herodian preists are watching him. etc.
That's recorded in Mark 3. The man had a withered hand, not blindness. Furthermore, Mark 3:7 records that "Jesus withdrew himself with His disciples to the sea" right after that event. Therefore, His disciples were with him on that occasion.
Zurreco wrote:
Therefore, how is it possible that we can accept a second-hand telling of a situation that serves to benefit the initial narrarator? Isn't that practically rumor?
This isn't an issue because of divine inspiration. I think it would be nice if people asked those questions about so-called "scientific" knowledge, however, such as the so-called "proof" for evolution, which definitely doesn't claim to be inspired by God. We could make a whole other thread just about that, though.
Some great thought provoking discussion so far guys, keep it up!
Also, Dacicus, two things:
By "organized religion", I'm thinking about christianity, judaism, islam, etc etc. The big widespread religions.
Also, this "I assume that you're using a different definition of "religion" than I am. Everyone has a religion, but not every religion mentions God, the supernatural, etc. Therefore, the trend, if it exists, is more toward religions without supernatural elements. " quote is partly contradicting the definition you yourself posted earlier ("esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"), but it's not a big deal so don't worry about it.
However, the quote of yours of everyone having their own religion (what I just quoted above) obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since we're specifically discussing religions with "supernatural elements" (your quote).
The second thing is this statement:
"I wonder if people are truly better-informed than 500 years ago. There is certainly more knowledge than 500 years ago, but I don't believe that the general populace has access to the majority of that knowledge. Even the knowledge that they do access through the mass media is partial, since each author has his or her own agenda."
I think this is a truly, truly ridiculous thing to state. I'm not saying this in a condescending way at all, all I'm saying is I can't imagine you've thought it through properly. Consider an average man in Britain (or wherever) in the year 1506 and everything he knows about the world, ranging from understanding what lightning is (an example I brought up in an earlier post) to various scientific stuff (chemistry or physics or math/algebra whatever). Consider that he probably has never been farther away from home than a day or two of travel. Consider he probably knows nothing about the world outside of Britain, and likely very little of the world outside of his village/town. Consider he can't read or write and has no schooling in any subjects. Also, the world is flat at this point.
To say that this man does not have less knowledge than you or me or the average Joe in 2006? I'm sure you'll agree that's a bit much after thinking about it some more, right?
And as kind of a sidenote, "mass media" has very very little to do with what people know today, aside from news reporting.
Guys, guys, chill out please. Let's not turn this into a regular religion-flamefest. The point here is certainly not to discuss if the bible is true of if a christian god exists. The point is to discuss whether or not you think my prediction about religion becoming almost non-existant in 75 years time is true or not.
Not that I mind a slight thread hijack or anything, but just think about it guys.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Dacicus wrote:
I think it would be nice if people asked those questions about so-called "scientific" knowledge, however, such as the so-called "proof" for evolution, which definitely doesn't claim to be inspired by God. We could make a whole other thread just about that, though.
They do. They ask themselves those kinds of questions all the time. When we question religion, there is a huge necessity for faith in order to accept the responses. When we question science, we further question things we don't accept until we can surely agree or disagree, to an obvious limit.
This is the difference between religion and the scientific approach:
"How did the universe begin?"
R: God created it all out of sheer will.
S: We think that it was created by something known as the Big Bang.
"And what was happening before this? Where did all of this come from?"
R: That is beyond our comprehension, and we simply accept that God and his ways are beyond us. We can not comprehend God in his infiniteness.
S: We can't answer that now, but we are still looking for answers.
Guys, guys, chill out please. Let's not turn this into a regular religion-flamefest. The point here is certainly not to discuss if the bible is true of if a christian god exists. The point is to discuss whether or not you think my prediction about religion becoming almost non-existant in 75 years time is true or not.
Not that I mind a slight thread hijack or anything, but just think about it guys.
I agree. I'm sorry if I sidetracked the topic. As I stated earlier, the last thing I want is a flamewar.
Guys, guys, chill out please. Let's not turn this into a regular religion-flamefest. The point here is certainly not to discuss if the bible is true of if a christian god exists. The point is to discuss whether or not you think my prediction about religion becoming almost non-existant in 75 years time is true or not.
Not that I mind a slight thread hijack or anything, but just think about it guys.
I agree. I'm sorry if I sidetracked the topic. As I stated earlier, the last thing I want is a flamewar.
Also, this "I assume .... supernatural elements. " quote is partly contradicting the definition you yourself posted earlier ("esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"), but it's not a big deal so don't worry about it.
It's not contradicting the definition, since the definition does not state that all religions include the supernatural, only that some do.
Fabian wrote:
To say that this man does not have less knowledge than you or me or the average Joe in 2006? I'm sure you'll agree that's a bit much after thinking about it some more, right?
Yes, I did word that part incorrectly. I meant that the percentage of all our knowledge today which an average Joe possesses or has ready access to is probably not much greater than the percentage of all knowledge in 1506 which an average Joe of that time possessed or had ready access to. If you want to discuss various forms of impediments to the access of knowledge, we can do that.
Fabian wrote:
However, the quote of yours of everyone having their own religion (what I just quoted above) obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since we're specifically discussing religions with "supernatural elements" (your quote).
You did not specify that we were discussing only those religions at the beginning of the topic. You just said "organized religion." Based on the definition I presented, I consider atheism, evolutionism, etc. as organized religions. They do fit your definition of being "big" and "widespread."
Fabian wrote:
And as kind of a sidenote, "mass media" has very very little to do with what people know today, aside from news reporting.
My main idea was that the majority of people who present knowledge in some form present it in a way to further their agenda.
Zurreco wrote:
When we question religion, there is a huge necessity for faith in order to accept the responses. When we question science, we further question things we don't accept until we can surely agree or disagree, to an obvious limit.
Science requires large amounts of faith to work, too. For example, scientists must have faith that the universe exists, that it consistently follows rules/laws, and that we have the capability to understand those laws. You can't scientifically prove that any of those are true, since they could just be errors with how you perceive things. For example, solipsists are a rather extreme example of people who do not believe those things, since they believe that only the mind exists. So, faith is required in order to accept any type of response, not just a religious one.
You might be right about the percentage of knowledge thing, although I'd guess no. It doesn't matter at all though. Don't really understand why it was brought up either.
Anyway, cool, glad we sorted out the misunderstandings. Do you agree or disagree with my prediction by the way?
You might be right about the percentage of knowledge thing, although I'd guess no. It doesn't matter at all though. Don't really understand why it was brought up either.
You, or someone else, said that people generally drop religion as they get more knowledge. I then said, or attempted to say, that increased knowledge does not necessarily require people to drop religion. An important factor, of course, is whether they have access to information about how the new knowledge supports one type of religion or another.
Fabian wrote:
Do you agree or disagree with my prediction by the way?
I can't say that I agree or disagree. It will depend on that "access to information" factor. If people will only (or mostly) have access to information that supports non-supernatural religions*, then the other types will most likely decrease dramatically, and vice versa. I think that the amount of people who believe in God as revealed in the Bible will decrease, at least as a percentage of the earth's total inhabitants, but I don't know how the numbers will shift.
*I mean religions that don't believe in the existence of any sort of supernatural being/object
Prediction: In 75 years, the vast majority of organized religion in Europe and North America will have disappeared.
At first reading, I interpreted your message as if, the point was rapture; all christians disappearing at once.
However, when reading replies, I understood that your point was the development of civilizations and religions becoming recognized as obsolete.
My personal belief is it that the certain powers that have existed for millenia, are not going to disappear in 100 years.
I consider atheism, evolutionism, etc. as organized religions.
Wake up. "Atheism" is a religious statement, not a religion. There are atheist religions, like secular humanism, some sects of Buddhism, etc. But there is no religion called "atheism".
"evolutionism" what?
As for the original topic, absolutely not all organised religions will not disappear so suddenly. Many religions have growing, not dropping, membership.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
I consider atheism, evolutionism, etc. as organized religions.
Wake up. "Atheism" is a religious statement, not a religion. There are atheist religions, like secular humanism, some sects of Buddhism, etc. But there is no religion called "atheism".
"evolutionism" what?
As for the original topic, absolutely not all organised religions will not disappear so suddenly. Many religions have growing, not dropping, membership.
Interesting. Which religions? Any sources/links?
One thing though. I would guess an increase in membership numbers would primarily be explained by a rapidly growing overall population, and if we looked at percentages, it might tell a different story. Do you think this is correct?
Popularity in world is increasing by average 1,39% every year.
Christians are increasing by average 1,43% every year.
I can't prove anything, but this is what I heard.
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
I see your basic argument but 75 years is way too short a timeline for all those belief systems to evaporate. 750 years, maybe, but not a single lifetime.
I could see a dramatic change in the church/state relationship by that time, given that politics is much more fickle. Compare the attitudes/positions of our governments 75 years ago compared to today - big changes have occured.
I'm inclined to agree with Fabian about Europe, but about the U.S. seems less probable. It may just be wishful thinking, though.
About the pizza thing: I can see how it could sort of make fun of Jesus, but I'm not sure I'd call that disrespect. I guess it falls into the same category as this.
Dacicus wrote:
This isn't an issue because of divine inspiration. I think it would be nice if people asked those questions about so-called "scientific" knowledge, however, such as the so-called "proof" for evolution, which definitely doesn't claim to be inspired by God. We could make a whole other thread just about that, though.
Evolution has been thoroughly proven; it's supported by mountains of evidence.
Dacicus wrote:
Science requires large amounts of faith to work, too. For example, scientists must have faith that the universe exists, that it consistently follows rules/laws, and that we have the capability to understand those laws. You can't scientifically prove that any of those are true, since they could just be errors with how you perceive things. For example, solipsists are a rather extreme example of people who do not believe those things, since they believe that only the mind exists. So, faith is required in order to accept any type of response, not just a religious one.
That's not faith at all. Faith is a process of non-thinking whereby one accepts beliefs passed down through tradition with no evidence, or even against the evidence. None of those things require faith; they can demonstrated scientifically (through inductive reasoning), not to mention that they're all glaringly obvious. Also, in my view it's futile to speculate about whether reality "really" exists; we can perceive it, and that's all that matters.
Popularity in world is increasing by average 1,39% every year.
Christians are increasing by average 1,43% every year.
I can't prove anything, but this is what I heard.
The population of the earth is much larger than the number of christians. I don't know the numbers, but I would think that .0139*population > .0143*christians so the total percentage of earths population that are christians would be decreasing.
(I read your post as an answer "no" to Fabian's question "do you think this is correct" and based my response on that).
Bob A, I'm beginning to think you're completely right about the Europe vs US thing. It will probably take longer in the US, like maybe 125-150 years or so, depending on what exactly it is I mean by "almost completely non-existant" or however I phrased it.
