The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

When will Jesus come back ? Options
Trichakra
Posted: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:45:36 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/30/2016
Posts: 37
Neurons: 161
Do you guys think that Jesus will come back or not?
Y111
Posted: Sunday, July 16, 2017 8:51:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 271
Neurons: 1,339
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Nobody seems to care. I wonder if even all Christians remember what this second coming is about. The soul is immortal, there are paradise and hell for it to go after death. What else? Why come? The kingdom of God? How is it different from paradise? Is God not the king of paradise? This would be very strange.

I guess this immortal soul, paradise and hell are later inventions. They don't look consistent with what Jesus said in the Gospel. How can you rise from the dead if you are still alive, living in paradise or hell? It doesn't make sense. If you have lost your body, it's actually good. Why would you want it back? What for? What's so bad about being a free spirit in paradise?
thar
Posted: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:15:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 18,168
Neurons: 73,802
Wow, judging by the length of time this went without an answer....

I suspect a lot of people do care, but if they do, they completely believe it will happen, so it's not really up for discussion.


I have always seen the Second Coming as a very nihilistic philosophy. I actually quite like this world, despite its many faults. Waiting for a god to come down, and take you to paradise has always seemed to me the ultimate in quitting, to me.
It makes people very selfish, as well.
(There is a group of Pacific Islands I won't name. Some were first converted by your standard missionaries, so they became Christian, but kept their ideas about respecting their ancestors and their future, being guardians of the land.
Another lot got converted with the idea of the second coming, so they took anything they wanted right now - cut down the trees, pollute the rivers, to hell with the future. So now they have an environmental catastrophe because they saw their own salvation and didn't give a f*** about anybody else.
"Ah, but we are not like that - they misunderstood, poor simple people!" No, it is the same thing, as far as I am concerned. A death cult, people giving up and waiting to be taken away.

And very divisive. I mean, it is a protection racket. You are scared into obeying till it happens. Then, everybody sees it, but only the righteous get to go. I mean, that is just spiteful. d'oh! Luckily, I don't think I'm invited so I still get to do my own thing. But being so showy just shows a lack of respect for others, man.


Wow, that was vicious. And unnecessary, for a dead thread. You must have caught me at a really bad time! To any nice people treading this who believe in this, I didn't mean to call you a death cult. Really. I am sure you have it in perspective! Silenced
Y111
Posted: Sunday, July 16, 2017 11:22:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 271
Neurons: 1,339
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
thar wrote:

Waiting for a god to come down, and take you to paradise has always seemed to me the ultimate in quitting, to me.

No, he is to come to establish a kingdom of God on Earth, not to take people anywhere. Of course, he will be able to undo any harm that will have been done to Earth by the time, but on the other hand, nobody knows when he will come, so cutting trees and polluting rivers isn't wise. But the story about the islands is interesting.

thar wrote:

And unnecessary, for a dead thread.

Why is the thread dead if we are here? Aren't we alive?
TMe
Posted: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:44:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 779
Neurons: 4,943
Yes and He will take all good people to heaven.

I am a layman.
almo 1
Posted: Sunday, July 16, 2017 3:01:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,253
Neurons: 5,715
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan











pedro
Posted: Thursday, November 2, 2017 8:07:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,043
Neurons: 61,899
If you could raise yourself from the dead you could do anything, but you can't.

All good ideas arrive by chance- Max Ernst
whatson
Posted: Thursday, November 2, 2017 5:53:09 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/19/2016
Posts: 328
Neurons: 2,642
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TMe wrote:
Yes and He will take all good people to heaven.


*
Wow, you have something to look forward to - rubbing elbows
with the skeletons of all those good people on the celestial elevator.



I am a lay-about.
Maryam Dad
Posted: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:07:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/13/2013
Posts: 676
Neurons: 3,419
almo 1 wrote:














Holy cow!

"And the sun and the moon are brought together --" (Al Qiyamah: 9)
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, November 4, 2017 4:38:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,085
Neurons: 92,919
pedro wrote:
If you could raise yourself from the dead you could do anything, but you can't.


Ah but could you cause yourself to have not existed?

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 6:21:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,631
Neurons: 451,846
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Trichakra wrote:
Do you guys think that Jesus will come back or not?


I think Jesus will come back. Now please tell us what you think.
But there is no point in wondering when, because even Jesus doesn't know. (Mark 13:32)

I can't help wondering why you ask the question. Are you a Believer, Trichakra? Have you hit a low spot in your spiritual life? Or are you just taking a shot in the dark? If so you are starting at the wrong end of things. Start from the beginning of the Gospel of Mark and when you come to the end try asking the question again.


I remember, therefore I am.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 6:23:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,631
Neurons: 451,846
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
pedro wrote:
If you could raise yourself from the dead you could do anything, but you can't.


True, pedro, but God can raise you from the dead and He can do anything.

I remember, therefore I am.
whatson
Posted: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 8:30:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/19/2016
Posts: 328
Neurons: 2,642
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
Can't stop cataclysms ... sorry, He's actually sending them.
Can't stop gunmen at entertainment venues like
concerts halls and churches.
Only the patient ones could list everything what He can't do.

This is the problem with imaginary beings.


I am a lay-about.
dusty
Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 10:55:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
Aye!

He's been back thrice, at least as far as the "Official" record which thereafter failed to keep official record.

In The New Testament alone, those who have ears and were learnt their letters, heard the stories of Jesus Of Nazareth AKA the Baptist, and then best known or Jesus as Himself, and the least known (due to spelling variant, and more due to the Elite whom executed him deciding that the best way to execute damage control of the Truth he was spreading was for AP aka Apostle Paul AKA Associated Press take the liberty to author over half of the New Testament as opposed to the being comprised mainly from the records written by His Disciples) Judas whom as it were, was effectively silenced by Paul, for all excepting those who have E.A.R.S (Eugene Area Radio Stations)

those who do, most often hear the out of place and bogus "creative"/extraneous line which comes out of nowhere and in a completely different voice "who betrayed Jesus" and those who hear often understand why the guards were so taken aback as to stumble and fall all over themselves once they get there and ask which one is Jesus, it's the same one who led them there, you'd be taken aback too if the guide you were following -- taking you to the Savior -- but you didn't realize the person you were following the entire time is or now was the Savior and they typically don't have trouble figuring out it was Peter who the Main Character Jesus straight out says something like You idiot, you will betray my three times before the cock crows!

Aye!

I'd say He's been back, Countless times since then, and the same story bout the AP runnin damage control so that the Truth remains hidden excepting for those seemingly few

so the story goes

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Clyde of Oz
Posted: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:04:27 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 12/22/2014
Posts: 65
Neurons: 2,577
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I do not believe he is coming back. I am far from sure he was ever here.

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” ― Carl Sagan
biba
Posted: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:21:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/15/2010
Posts: 205
Neurons: 4,419
Location: Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
Trichakra wrote:
Do you guys think that Jesus will come back or not?



-I believe He will come back. :)

Is it possible to know when Jesus is coming back?
Jesus coming back
Question: "Is it possible to know when Jesus is coming back?"

Answer: Matthew 24:36-44 declares, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father…Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come…So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him.” At first glance, these verses would seem to provide a clear and explicit answer to the question. No, no one can know when Jesus is coming back. However, those verses do not say that no one will ever be able to know when Jesus will return. Most Bible scholars would say that Jesus, now glorified in heaven, knows the timing of His return, indicating that the phrase “nor the Son” does not mean Jesus will never know when He will return. Similarly, it is possible that, while Matthew 24:36-44 indicates that no one at that time could know the timing of Jesus’ return, God could reveal the timing of Jesus’ return to someone in the future.

In addition, there is Acts 1:7, which states, "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority." This was said by Jesus after the disciples asked Him if He was at that time going to restore the kingdom to Israel. This would seem to confirm the message of Matthew 24. It is not for us to know the timing of Jesus coming back. But there is also the question of which return these passages are referring to. Are they speaking of the Rapture or the Second Coming? Which return is unknowable—the Rapture, the Second Coming, or both? While the Rapture is presented as being imminent and mysterious, the timing of the Second Coming could potentially be known based on end-times prophecy.

With that said, let us be abundantly clear: we do not believe that God has revealed to anyone when Jesus is coming back, and we see nothing in Scripture which indicates that God will ever reveal to anyone when Jesus is coming back. Matthew 24:36-44, while spoken directly to the people in Jesus’ time, also contains a general principle. The timing of Jesus’ return and the end of the age is not for us to know. Scripture nowhere encourages us to try to determine the date. Rather, we are to “keep watch, because we do not know on which day our Lord will come” (v. 42). We are to “be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when we do not expect Him” (v. 44). The force of Jesus’ words diminishes if at some point in the future someone will be able to determine when He is coming back. If the date is discovered, we no longer need to “keep watch” or “be ready.” So, with the principle of Matthew 24:36-44 is mind, no, it is not possible for anyone to know the date that Jesus is coming back.

Despite this clear biblical principle, many throughout Christian history have attempted to prophesy the date that Jesus is coming back. Many such dates have been proposed, and all of them have been wrong. There have been two recent, popularly proposed dates: May 21, 2011, and December 21, 2012. The December 21, 2012, date is related to the Mayan calendar, with no biblical data used as evidence. The May 21, 2011, "Judgment Day" date was proposed by Harold Camping of Family Radio. It should be noted that Harold Camping previously predicted that Jesus would come back in 1994. Obviously, Camping was wrong. Camping claimed to have evidence for the May 21, 2011, date in Scripture. By using a speculative date of 4990 B.C. for the Flood, and then applying the “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years” of 2 Peter 3:8 to the seven days of Genesis 7:4, and then counting down the 7,000 years from 4990, the year 2011 resulted. Then, based on “the seventeenth day of the second month” from Genesis 7:11 and using the Hebrew calendar, the date of May 21 was determined. So, was there any validity to Camping’s methodology?

First, Camping conveniently ignored the second half of 2 Peter 3:8, “and a thousand years as one day.” Further, 2 Peter 3:8 is not providing a method for dating the end times. Rather, 2 Peter 3:8 is simply saying that God is above and beyond time. God is timeless, infinite, and eternal. Second, nothing in the context of Genesis 7:4-11 indicates that the “seven days” and “seventeenth day of the second month” are to be interpreted as applying to anything other than what God was specifically saying to Noah. Third, the Flood being dated to 4990 B.C. is speculative at best, with no explicit biblical evidence. Camping’s calculation of May 21, 2011, fell apart under even the most basic biblical scrutiny. Now, was it possible for Jesus to come back on May 21, 2011? Yes, but it is just as possible that He will come back on any other date. Did Harold Camping’s particular dating methodology have any biblical validity? No, it did not. Sadly, Camping and others will surely calculate new future dates and will attempt to explain away mistakes by “errors in the formula” or something to that effect.

The key points are (1) the Bible nowhere encourages us to attempt to discover the timing of Jesus’ return and (2) the Bible gives no explicit data by which the timing of Jesus’ return can be determined. Rather than developing wild and speculative calculations to determine when Jesus is coming back, the Bible encourages us to “keep watch” and “be ready” (Matthew 24:42-44). The fact that the day of Jesus’ return is unknown should motivate us to live every day in light of the imminence of Christ’s return.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-coming-back.html

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” -John 20:29
Nelson Cerqueira
Posted: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 10:02:23 PM

Rank: Member

Joined: 12/24/2017
Posts: 50
Neurons: 89,398
Location: Salvador, Tocantins, Brazil
Anxious Jesus will come if you Christian and if you believe in eternal return!
Nelson Cerqueira
Posted: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 10:07:09 PM

Rank: Member

Joined: 12/24/2017
Posts: 50
Neurons: 89,398
Location: Salvador, Tocantins, Brazil
if you are Jewish, Jesus has never arrived, norjesys willnot come back, if you are a Jew.
Epiphileon
Posted: Thursday, July 5, 2018 3:42:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,085
Neurons: 92,919


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Akkuratix
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2018 2:33:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/10/2009
Posts: 119
Neurons: 535
Location: Kemi, Lapponia, Finland
Never.

Praise a child once a day, let alone your spouse.
whatson
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2018 7:43:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/19/2016
Posts: 328
Neurons: 2,642
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
When will Jesus come back?

In my opinion, in about eight years, when young Barron
graduates from high school. Thanks to the plea of the Holy Mother,
Jesus at present will not needlessly tear the child from his family.

But by the time he comes of age, it will be obvious, if he is or isn't
corrupted by his elders, and if he is, Jesus will have no qualms about
whisking the whole family into the lowest of the lower depths of Hell.

If Barron hasn't inherited any of the ugly traits of his papa and siblings,
most likely he will be left to toil with the sweat drying on his brow, like
the rest of the living.



I am a lay-about.
leonAzul
Posted: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 11:36:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,473
Neurons: 27,518
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
IMHO, Yeshua has come and gone and come and gone.

"Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
"
Pray

And then He came and went.
Think

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 2, 2018 11:09:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,831
Neurons: 51,747
Well, He either will or won’t, depending on if He, as God, ever came in the first place. It really doesn’t matter too much, because even if He didn’t come as reported, humans would have a need for Him anyway, and so would invent another one to replace Him.

Throughout history, humans have invented gods and religions. It would seem that it is instinctive in humans to do so, perhaps because of our instinctive need to be cared for by adults in childhood. That is absolutely essential to our survival from infancy to young adulthood.

It has been said by some that without religion humans wouldn’t have a moral code and would then be immoral, but that can’t possibly be true, because history reveals that we have invented a multitude of religions with their own moral codes. It is also true that a multitude of people who adhere to religions consistently violate the moral codes of their religions. This is allegedly the reason why we need gods and religions; to show us how we should behave, but we really already know. That's how we were able to invent moral codes in the first place. Ultimately, all religions and moral codes are a product of our own invention.

Still, the instinct to look to a guide, a protector, an arbiter of what is righteous, and a persona who is a perfect embodiment of what a human should be, remains within many of us, and is not likely to be abandoned anytime soon. So acceptance of the fact that humans need religion and a belief in a God would seem to be in order. There is no point in trying to eliminate it.

The problem is always the excesses to which humans always want to run. Whether it is an attempt to destroy faith in gods and religion, or to adhere to belief in such, humans always tend to go to extremes, and it is this that needs to be controlled and avoided. Gods and religions are here to stay, so we might as well use them for our mutual benefit and seek to avoid the excesses that lead to damage for our fellow humans.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, August 3, 2018 5:24:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,085
Neurons: 92,919
FounDit wrote:
Throughout history, humans have invented gods and religions. It would seem that it is instinctive in humans to do so, perhaps because of our instinctive need to be cared for by adults in childhood. That is absolutely essential to our survival from infancy to young adulthood.
Technically this is not an instinctive behavior, and while it is a technicality it is a critical one. Gods and religions are memes, and the results of coevolutionary forces. Coevolutionary theory, or what I believe is now being called evolutionary psychology is not, (disastrously not), being taken sufficiently into consideration in modern human societies. One of the primary reasons for this is in fact religions. Coevolutionary theory not only shows gods and religions to be a product of evolutionary processes but entirely invalidates the notion of an interactive deity being a causative agent in history, and the nature of human behavior.

It has been said by some that without religion humans wouldn’t have a moral code and would then be immoral, but that can’t possibly be true, because history reveals that we have invented a multitude of religions with their own moral codes.
I couldn't possibly agree with you more on this point; however, unfortunately impossibility has little to do with what belief over critical thinking, will allow to be called fact.

Still, the instinct to look to a guide, a protector, an arbiter of what is righteous, and a persona who is a perfect embodiment of what a human should be, remains within many of us, and is not likely to be abandoned anytime soon. So acceptance of the fact that humans need religion and a belief in a God would seem to be in order. There is no point in trying to eliminate it.
On this I couldn't possibly disagree more, gods and religious belief are driving homo sapiens down the extinction highway. The prevalent gods and religions of modern society can in no way accept evolutionary theory as the basis for human behavior, it is anathema to them. As long as the majority of people are still believing in an omnipotent, interactive deity with a benevolent plan for whichever brand of chosen people a particular religion claims, we are doomed.

... Gods and religions are here to stay, so we might as well use them for our mutual benefit and seek to avoid the excesses that lead to damage for our fellow humans.
We should not accept that gods and religions are here to stay; however, I believe that most of what are called "the new atheists", are badly mistaken in their approach to dealing with religious minded people. Ironically they are not appreciating the power of evolutionarily ingrained behaviors. Optimally atheists would have kept our mouths shut and come up with some sort of transitional steps towards a naturalist interpretation of reality; however, that is just completely unrealistic, the degree of foresight and large scale cooperation and machinations that would have taken are not even close to being within the realm of possibility.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, August 3, 2018 7:47:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 549
Neurons: 2,847
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
FounDit wrote:

Throughout history, humans have invented gods and religions. It would seem that it is instinctive in humans to do so, perhaps because of our instinctive need to be cared for by adults in childhood.


I am sure this explains it partly, but I am not sure this "need for care" is the only reason.

For example, I don't expect a god to care for me. And I never pray to God asking for favours. I was raised in the USSR as an atheist, so it was from atheism that my personal beliefs started to evolve. Then at the University I studied primarily math and physics, and I never read more than few lines from Bible or any other religious book.

However, it is from studying more of science and from real life experience that I gradually started to wonder whether the nature of the physical world was that different from a virtual reality... A model, where certain "particles" are distributed in "space" and interact according to mathimatical laws. So how did it all come to exist? The dominant scientific theory is that it somehow originated itself from nothing (Big Bang). But it could as well have been a creation... So originally being an atheist, at some point in my life I stopped to discard this latter possibility, and the notion of God or Gods with it.

Anyway, sorry for being so wordy, I guess what I mean to say is that I came to the idea or possibility of God(s) from the other end, so to speak. Not because I was raised religious, or taught to be religious, or feel the need for external protection, but rather from learning more about this world we live in.

FounDit wrote:

It has been said by some that without religion humans wouldn’t have a moral code and would then be immoral, but that can’t possibly be true, because history reveals that we have invented a multitude of religions with their own moral codes. It is also true that a multitude of people who adhere to religions consistently violate the moral codes of their religions. This is allegedly the reason why we need gods and religions; to show us how we should behave, but we really already know. That's how we were able to invent moral codes in the first place. Ultimately, all religions and moral codes are a product of our own invention.


I fully agree with this. All my experience suggests there's very little correlation if any between one's religiousness and his/her actual moral code. The latter seems to be more product of culture, education and childhood experience, plus maybe some pre-determined, genetically or otherwise, phycological "settings" (basic values, basic aspirations), who knows.

FounDit wrote:

The problem is always the excesses to which humans always want to run.


I disagree with "want". In too many cases these extremes are product of deliberate policies by interest groups. And this is exactly the evil we must fight and defeat. They find it very difficult to manipulate educated and reasonable people who make their own and adequate assessment of what's going on. And on the other hand it is pretty easy to manipulate people whose minds have been driven into some kind of extreme, and therefore, inadequacy. So it is minority(ies) who seek to literally infect minds one way or another (think of it as of a software virus) and rule this world, that have always been at the root of many of these problems.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 3, 2018 12:11:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,831
Neurons: 51,747
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Throughout history, humans have invented gods and religions. It would seem that it is instinctive in humans to do so, perhaps because of our instinctive need to be cared for by adults in childhood. That is absolutely essential to our survival from infancy to young adulthood.
Technically this is not an instinctive behavior, and while it is a technicality it is a critical one. Gods and religions are memes, and the results of coevolutionary forces. Coevolutionary theory, or what I believe is now being called evolutionary psychology is not, (disastrously not), being taken sufficiently into consideration in modern human societies. One of the primary reasons for this is in fact religions. Coevolutionary theory not only shows gods and religions to be a product of evolutionary processes but entirely invalidates the notion of an interactive deity being a causative agent in history, and the nature of human behavior.
I suggested that the need for belief in gods grows out of an instinctive need of a child for a caretaker — perhaps — although I must say it seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me, even evolutionarily speaking. Are you suggesting this instinct does not exist, or that there are other evolutionary forces at work? The only other ones that occur to me are the social needs of humans for survival, but those seem to me to occur later in development, after the initial caregiver stage.

It has been said by some that without religion humans wouldn’t have a moral code and would then be immoral, but that can’t possibly be true, because history reveals that we have invented a multitude of religions with their own moral codes.
I couldn't possibly agree with you more on this point; however, unfortunately impossibility has little to do with what belief over critical thinking, will allow to be called fact.

Still, the instinct to look to a guide, a protector, an arbiter of what is righteous, and a persona who is a perfect embodiment of what a human should be, remains within many of us, and is not likely to be abandoned anytime soon. So acceptance of the fact that humans need religion and a belief in a God would seem to be in order. There is no point in trying to eliminate it.
On this I couldn't possibly disagree more, gods and religious belief are driving homo sapiens down the extinction highway. The prevalent gods and religions of modern society can in no way accept evolutionary theory as the basis for human behavior, it is anathema to them. As long as the majority of people are still believing in an omnipotent, interactive deity with a benevolent plan for whichever brand of chosen people a particular religion claims, we are doomed.
You offer no evidence to support that assertion. In point of fact, the opposite appears to be empirically true. For all the gods and religions that have been invented over the millennia, humanity has progressed to become infinitely more advanced, improving in nearly every area of life, from control of diseases that once decimated us, to quality of life and longevity, manipulation of the elements, to space exploration. I see no reason to believe we are doomed. That's not to say it isn't possible, for it is, but I don't believe we actually will do that.

... Gods and religions are here to stay, so we might as well use them for our mutual benefit and seek to avoid the excesses that lead to damage for our fellow humans.
We should not accept that gods and religions are here to stay; however, I believe that most of what are called "the new atheists", are badly mistaken in their approach to dealing with religious minded people. Ironically they are not appreciating the power of evolutionarily ingrained behaviors. Optimally atheists would have kept our mouths shut and come up with some sort of transitional steps towards a naturalist interpretation of reality; however, that is just completely unrealistic, the degree of foresight and large scale cooperation and machinations that would have taken are not even close to being within the realm of possibility.
I agree with everything but that first statement. I have serious doubts that the desire to believe in gods and religions can be eliminated from humanity, and, as I said earlier, I think it is a mistake to attempt to do so. To do otherwise is to impose one set of beliefs over another set of beliefs, and this will always create conflict. Humans should be allowed to adopt individual beliefs that suit each person, so long as they don't infringe on others. To quote myself:
"...so we might as well use them for our mutual benefit and seek to avoid the excesses that lead to damage for our fellow humans.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 3, 2018 12:21:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,831
Neurons: 51,747
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
FounDit wrote:

Throughout history, humans have invented gods and religions. It would seem that it is instinctive in humans to do so, perhaps because of our instinctive need to be cared for by adults in childhood.


I am sure this explains it partly, but I am not sure this "need for care" is the only reason.

For example, I don't expect a god to care for me. And I never pray to God asking for favours.
There are a great many of us who feel the same way, but it must be acknowledged that there are many more, I believe, who are quite comfortable with the idea of being cared for by a god, who look forward to a Paradise.

I was raised in the USSR as an atheist, so it was from atheism that my personal beliefs started to evolve. Then at the University I studied primarily math and physics, and I never read more than few lines from Bible or any other religious book.

However, it is from studying more of science and from real life experience that I gradually started to wonder whether the nature of the physical world was that different from a virtual reality... A model, where certain "particles" are distributed in "space" and interact according to mathimatical laws. So how did it all come to exist? The dominant scientific theory is that it somehow originated itself from nothing (Big Bang). But it could as well have been a creation... So originally being an atheist, at some point in my life I stopped to discard this latter possibility, and the notion of God or Gods with it.

Anyway, sorry for being so wordy, I guess what I mean to say is that I came to the idea or possibility of God(s) from the other end, so to speak. Not because I was raised religious, or taught to be religious, or feel the need for external protection, but rather from learning more about this world we live in.
This is exactly the point I wanted to make with Epiphileon. Each person should be free to make up their own minds, with the understanding that there will always be people who will choose to believe in gods and religions.

FounDit wrote:

It has been said by some that without religion humans wouldn’t have a moral code and would then be immoral, but that can’t possibly be true, because history reveals that we have invented a multitude of religions with their own moral codes. It is also true that a multitude of people who adhere to religions consistently violate the moral codes of their religions. This is allegedly the reason why we need gods and religions; to show us how we should behave, but we really already know. That's how we were able to invent moral codes in the first place. Ultimately, all religions and moral codes are a product of our own invention.


I fully agree with this. All my experience suggests there's very little correlation if any between one's religiousness and his/her actual moral code. The latter seems to be more product of culture, education and childhood experience, plus maybe some pre-determined, genetically or otherwise, phycological "settings" (basic values, basic aspirations), who knows.

FounDit wrote:

The problem is always the excesses to which humans always want to run.


I disagree with "want". In too many cases these extremes are product of deliberate policies by interest groups. To me, the "deliberate policies by interest groups" are a perfect example of "want" that I mentioned. They "want" control; they "want" to enforce their thinking on everyone. And this is exactly the evil we must fight and defeat. They find it very difficult to manipulate educated and reasonable people who make their own and adequate assessment of what's going on. And on the other hand it is pretty easy to manipulate people whose minds have been driven into some kind of extreme, and therefore, inadequacy. So it is minority(ies) who seek to literally infect minds one way or another (think of it as of a software virus) and rule this world, that have always been at the root of many of these problems.
And with this I agree with you. These minorities seek to become majorities and to then control all thought for the purpose of control and power over their fellow humans.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, August 4, 2018 5:16:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,085
Neurons: 92,919
FounDit wrote:
I suggested that the need for belief in gods grows out of an instinctive need of a child for a caretaker — perhaps — although I must say it seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me, even evolutionarily speaking. Are you suggesting this instinct does not exist, or that there are other evolutionary forces at work? The only other ones that occur to me are the social needs of humans for survival, but those seem to me to occur later in development, after the initial caregiver stage.
I am not sure there is such a thing as an instinct for the need of a caregiver. It seems much more likely to me that most of our reliance on a caregiver, while obviously a necessary behavior, may be largely a learned one. Whether that is the case or not though, it seems far more likely that the origins of religious thought are the result of the incomprehensibility of, and or, the fear of, death.

Epi wrote:
The prevalent gods and religions of modern society can in no way accept evolutionary theory as the basis for human behavior, it is anathema to them. As long as the majority of people are still believing in an omnipotent, interactive deity with a benevolent plan for whichever brand of chosen people a particular religion claims, we are doomed.

You offer no evidence to support that assertion. In point of fact, the opposite appears to be empirically true. For all the gods and religions that have been invented over the millennia, humanity has progressed to become infinitely more advanced, improving in nearly every area of life, from control of diseases that once decimated us, to quality of life and longevity, manipulation of the elements, to space exploration. I see no reason to believe we are doomed.

Well first of all I have argued the dangers of religion rather extensively over the years here, however, I also think that it is self evident that if most of the people in a population are refusing to accept a more accurate explanation of human behavior rather than one created out of fear and ignorance, that can not possibly be an adaptive strategy. Failure to adopt adaptive strategies is one of the leading causes for a species' extinction.

Humanity has progressed over the millennia, and in some cases specifically because of religion, but religion was also evolving over those millennia. The most problematic religions of today stopped any significant evolutionary advance 2000 years ago. Further pointing to past adaptivity, or evolutionary success is moot, every species that is now extinct was at one time evolutionarily successful.

I do fully agree that people should have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, but only with the absolute caveat that they in no way attempt to mold society into adherence to those beliefs, or the morality specifically inherent to them.

The improvements you mention in the human condition are all attributable to science, and some of that science was indeed motivated by a desire to more fully understand the awesomeness of one god or another; however, even when this is true, it was the motivation for the advance not the actual causation. Religion today is far more of a force for stagnation than for advancement.

If you recall in my threads; "The Spirituality of Atheism", and "Is Atheism Evolutionarily Unstable?", I specifically address this issue of the evolutionary strength of belief in gods and the potential that the leap from our current state to an atheistic one is just a bridge to far.

Epi wrote:
We should not accept that gods and religions are here to stay...

I agree with everything but that first statement.... Humans should be allowed to adopt individual beliefs that suit each person, so long as they don't infringe on others.

Ah but there is the crux of the biscuit isn't it? Can you name me one of the major religions today that is not attempting to infringe on the rights of others to believe what they wish? One that isn't trying to impose their morality on the population in general?

Allow me to rephrase my statement,
We should not accept that belief in gods and religions are here to stay in the manner in which they are currently affecting society.

Also please recall that in the background, (for the most part), of the most problematic religions of today, is the firm belief that the world is coming to an end, and by design. I'm pretty sure that in itself is a profound danger to the future.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, August 4, 2018 3:02:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,831
Neurons: 51,747
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I suggested that the need for belief in gods grows out of an instinctive need of a child for a caretaker — perhaps — although I must say it seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me, even evolutionarily speaking. Are you suggesting this instinct does not exist, or that there are other evolutionary forces at work? The only other ones that occur to me are the social needs of humans for survival, but those seem to me to occur later in development, after the initial caregiver stage.
I am not sure there is such a thing as an instinct for the need of a caregiver. It seems much more likely to me that most of our reliance on a caregiver, while obviously a necessary behavior, may be largely a learned one. Whether that is the case or not though, it seems far more likely that the origins of religious thought are the result of the incomprehensibility of, and or, the fear of, death.
An excellent point, and the more I think on it, the more inclined I am to agree with you.

Epi wrote:
The prevalent gods and religions of modern society can in no way accept evolutionary theory as the basis for human behavior, it is anathema to them. As long as the majority of people are still believing in an omnipotent, interactive deity with a benevolent plan for whichever brand of chosen people a particular religion claims, we are doomed.

You offer no evidence to support that assertion. In point of fact, the opposite appears to be empirically true. For all the gods and religions that have been invented over the millennia, humanity has progressed to become infinitely more advanced, improving in nearly every area of life, from control of diseases that once decimated us, to quality of life and longevity, manipulation of the elements, to space exploration. I see no reason to believe we are doomed.

Well first of all I have argued the dangers of religion rather extensively over the years here, however, I also think that it is self evident that if most of the people in a population are refusing to accept a more accurate explanation of human behavior rather than one created out of fear and ignorance, that can not possibly be an adaptive strategy. Failure to adopt adaptive strategies is one of the leading causes for a species' extinction.
This paragraph triggers two distinct threads of thought. First is the idea that fear can be allayed by acceptance of a more accurate explanation of human behavior. I think that can work for a great many people, and might be especially true for us as we move out into space, but it also appears that there are as many, if not more, for whom the idea of a loving father figure services that fear more immediately and facilely.

The second is that I'm not sure the failure to adopt one adaptive strategy is necessarily fatal. We are, after all, the most adaptive species on the planet. Who's to say both lines of thought are not capable of existing at some time in the future? It's happening currently, though not without many problems, and I don't think it has reached the level of species annihilation yet.

Humanity has progressed over the millennia, and in some cases specifically because of religion, but religion was also evolving over those millennia. The most problematic religions of today stopped any significant evolutionary advance 2000 years ago. Further pointing to past adaptivity, or evolutionary success is moot, every species that is now extinct was at one time evolutionarily successful.
But as pointed out, not as adaptive as we humans. That might make quite a difference. It occurs to me that though the evolutionary advance stopped 2000 years ago, the fact that faith remained constant (and arguably necessary through the so-called "Dark Ages"), and survives today alongside amazing leaps in scientific knowledge, that this portends the possibility of co-existence, at least into the foreseeable future, when it might be reduced to a very low number; but I doubt it will ever see extinction itself.

I do fully agree that people should have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, but only with the absolute caveat that they in no way attempt to mold society into adherence to those beliefs, or the morality specifically inherent to them.

The improvements you mention in the human condition are all attributable to science, and some of that science was indeed motivated by a desire to more fully understand the awesomeness of one god or another; however, even when this is true, it was the motivation for the advance not the actual causation. Religion today is far more of a force for stagnation than for advancement.

If you recall in my threads; "The Spirituality of Atheism", and "Is Atheism Evolutionarily Unstable?", I specifically address this issue of the evolutionary strength of belief in gods and the potential that the leap from our current state to an atheistic one is just a bridge to far.

Epi wrote:
We should not accept that gods and religions are here to stay...

I agree with everything but that first statement.... Humans should be allowed to adopt individual beliefs that suit each person, so long as they don't infringe on others.

Ah but there is the crux of the biscuit isn't it? Can you name me one of the major religions today that is not attempting to infringe on the rights of others to believe what they wish? One that isn't trying to impose their morality on the population in general?
But isn't this the very emblem of humanity? We constantly battle one another over which ideas should hold sway. Atheism and Agnosticism is doing the same thing today. Eventually one idea or belief system holds power for a time, but the motivating force behind the struggle always seems to remain constant.

Allow me to rephrase my statement,
We should not accept that belief in gods and religions are here to stay in the manner in which they are currently affecting society.

Also please recall that in the background, (for the most part), of the most problematic religions of today, is the firm belief that the world is coming to an end, and by design. I'm pretty sure that in itself is a profound danger to the future.
I see your point, but I find it difficult to accept the idea that anyone in their position can truly believe it to be in their best interest to hasten that outcome. Of course, I could be wrong...Think I can only hope not.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 6, 2018 5:25:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 549
Neurons: 2,847
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will
Posted: Monday, August 6, 2018 11:22:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,148
Neurons: 4,732
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
The dominant scientific theory is that it somehow originated itself from nothing (Big Bang).

Sorry, this is incorrect. The Big Bang Theory only describes the evolution of the universe from the Planck era to the current state, and absolutely does not suggest the universe “somehow originated itself from nothing”. We don’t currently have the technology to make scientific observations or testable predictions about the period prior the Planck era (if ‘time’ is even meaningful at such scales). The prevailing scientific theory (Big Bang) does not deal with the non scientific. I don’t even think any model in theoretical physics suggests the universe originated from nothing.

This might sound like a pedantic point, but your common misrepresentation is a slippery slope to nonsense – particularly in a religion sub forum. It’s very much like trying to discuss (biological) evolution while casually accepting the – empirically supported – theory includes abiogenesis as a premise.

That said, even if Big Bang Theory did state the universe originated from nothing, the addition of gods adds nothing apart from a process of infinite regression. If the (godless) universe can’t be allowed to spontaneously arise from nothing, why should a ‘god’ be allowed to spontaneously arise from nothing in order to create a universe?

And even a god was able to somehow originate itself from nothing, how does that deistic god evidentially translate to any of the plethora of specific (always revealed via mere mortals) Gods, past, present, and future?

The invention of Gods who imagine an afterlife of suffering for others who have intercourse before marriage or with the ‘wrong’ type of person, and an afterlife in paradise for those that mutilate the genitals of babies and those that kill apostates, does not fill any gap in the scientific knowledge of humanity.


.
will
Posted: Monday, August 6, 2018 11:33:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,148
Neurons: 4,732
Epiphileon wrote:
Well first of all I have argued the dangers of religion rather extensively over the years here, however, I also think that it is self evident that if most of the people in a population are refusing to accept a more accurate explanation of human behavior rather than one created out of fear and ignorance, that can not possibly be an adaptive strategy. Failure to adopt adaptive strategies is one of the leading causes for a species' extinction.

And this isn't just restricted to religion. It also applies to other collective myths such as nations, race, and even abstract notions of wealth and rights.


.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 5:29:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 549
Neurons: 2,847
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

And even a god was able to somehow originate itself from nothing, how does that deistic god evidentially translate to any of the plethora of specific (always revealed via mere mortals) Gods, past, present, and future?



I've already responded to this more than once... The answer is very simple, and it's been before our very eyes all along.

I am in a good mood today, so let me make one more try.Angel

The key to understanding this is to realize that the time itself only aplies to the physical universe. It is part of its design. But there is other reality where time does not exist and does not apply to.

Say, in mathematics you define a space. To make it simple, let's talk about 2-dimensional Euclidian space. The definition consists of only few simple statements.

And this simple definition immediately gives rise to an indefinite number of properties of an indefinite number of all possible objects in that space.

All those properties derive from the definition via formal logic. There is no time lag between the cause (definition) and the consequnce (the indefinite number of properties). There is no time in that space. It is eternal. It is just there, ideally accurate and timeless. And yet it is real. Mathematicians can operate with that reality, contemplate its various objects and properties, and while doing this they all are somehow talking about the same thing. There is only one accuarate answer to any specific question. And that accurate answer, once it is found, is identical for all the human beings considering the issue. So the accurate solution (say, some object's property) exists as a stand-alone reality, existing independently of humans who think about it.

Other definitions automatically result in other indefinite arrays of objects and their properties... That Great Ideal Reality encompasses all possible definitions and all the indefinite mass of facts that result from those. That ideal Reality is firm and timeless. Such "earthly" concepts as "creation", "origin", "beginning and end" do not apply there. Such concepts only seem necessary to us bacause we are used to percieving time as indespensible part of existance. But this is simply not true, as demonstrated above.

I see two key things:

(i) we must realize the the physical universe is not all. In fact, if it is reality, it is only a tiny and shaky part of it.

(ii) by design the physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. So no illusions about "evolution". When left without attendance, the physical matter only degrades into less organized chaotic forms, and never will a steam engine morph into diesel no matter for how long time you leave it alone. So it looks quite a ridiculous idea (to me, anyway) that such unbelievably complex structures as a human body, for example, could have somehow imerged from "raw matter" without a creative process involved. Such an idea contradicts all our experince. Since we learn to build from blocks as children, we know that you can't build anything by just shuffling blocks at random. First you must think - create an ideal image of what you want to achieve. And only after that you can try to encarnate that image into physical matter. And that's the only way.




Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 5:55:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 992
Neurons: 492,650
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:

(ii) by design the physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. So no illusions about "evolution". When left without attendance, the physical matter only degrades into less organized chaotic forms, and never will a steam engine morph into diesel no matter for how long time you leave it alone. So it looks quite a ridiculous idea (to me, anyway) that such unbelievably complex structures as a human body, for example, could have somehow imerged from "raw matter" without a creative process involved. Such an idea contradicts all our experince. Since we learn to build from blocks as children, we know that you can't build anything by just shuffling blocks at random. First you must think - create an ideal image of what you want to achieve. And only after that you can try to encarnate that image into physical matter. And that's the only way.


You say "By design the physical matter..." but you don't specify which design or why it wouldn't be able to develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. Physical matter starts simple and develops itself into more organized forms all the time. That's what happens when someone is pregnant and a baby develops. Cells splitting and developing into something complex. That doesn't contradict all of our experiences at all.

Maybe you did not find anything new by shuffling blocks around at random as a child, but personally, if I did/do that, I find new ways of creating, new potential that I hadn't thought of before. How do else do most of our inventions come to be? People saw how randomly grains and water interacted with heat and bread was developed. We see it and we find meaning in it and develop it according to our needs but that doesn't mean it can't start on its own, independent of us. If a tree falls across a ravine, it's a random occurrence but to us it's a bridge. Similarly, during development a mutation occurs and it can have a myriad of consequences. A cell develops differently and your child ends up immune to a disease other people die from. That's evolution in a way that we can experience even now, in our short-lived experience.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 7:35:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 549
Neurons: 2,847
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:

You say "By design the physical matter..." but you don't specify which design or why it wouldn't be able to develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. Physical matter starts simple and develops itself into more organized forms all the time. That's what happens when someone is pregnant and a baby develops. Cells splitting and developing into something complex. That doesn't contradict all of our experiences at all.



This is correct, it works because a cell has a very smartly organized and sophisticated mechanism for self-reproduction embedded in it. But if for some unfortunate reason that mechanism fails, and mechanisms for auto-repairing also embedded in the cell also fail to remedy the problem, there is no way that mechanism somehow restablishes itself by chance.

Restoring it would again require a creative process. Somebody, say a talanted biologist, would have to make a design - an ideal image of how that mechanism should work - and then try to make the necessary operation on the cell to put that mechanism in place.

The key is that (i) ideal is real, even more so than what's made of matter (see my previos post), and (ii) ideal always comes first.

The idea of the cell, i.e. an image of what it should be like to work given the laws of physics that govern the matter, comes before the physical cell.

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.