*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[steve_bank]

Historically that love others thing has not worked out so good. All those European Christian sectarian wars.

The Sikhs practice charity. The main temple in the Punjab in India feeds thousands daily. The temple in Seattle opens its doors for meals.

The Buddhist compassion for all living things. Christians act as if no one else can be a decent human being and take credit for all good things ignoring the negatives.

I knew a Muslim who was part of an informal Muslim charity group. They pool money and find people in need.


The ancient Jews themselves were clannish and parochial. A closed culture. WE are the chosen people. The Hebrews followed by Christians and Muslims are all genially contain an element of violence and aggression inherent to the faith. Righteous killing in the name of a god. God is on our side against our enemies.

 

[1ICrying]

The Bible says to love ourselves, and to love others.

So that means, once you are done loving yourself (masturbating, getting high or having sex, gay or otherwise), we will then turn our attention out to others - and to love them as well.

In some cases that may include having sex with them : )

However, after the sex is all accomplished, we are to go and help the poor, visit the sick, feed the hungry, and do good for others. Those rewards may not be physical for us, but they will certainly be spiritual, and of great reward to all.

I think God likes us to be happily balanced. And didn't Buddha say good things about moderation....



That's all folks

not forever Keith&Co, don't worry.

Ill be back

1IC

Do you realize that the "golden rule" is found in most or possible all world religions, as well as many secular philosophies? It's probably a human universal. You don't have to be a Christian to realize that we should treat other people in the same way that we like to be treated. And, I agree that doing good works is it's own reward. I would probably use the word "emotional" instead of spiritual, but semantics aren't that important to me in most cases. If you need Christianity to be a better person and if you want to look at the rewards that you receive when you help a disabled or poor friend, give money to a charity, etc., as a spiritual reward, that's cool with me too. The word spiritual has many different meanings to people.

I would only hope that you would come to realize that I can find those same rewards without religion. Let each one of us be respectful of the path that others find that help them be a better person. A truly moral person doesn't judge those with different beliefs. That's my belief. It's good to have friends who are of different religions, races, cultures, ages, economic situations, etc. It helps us be more understanding, more tolerant and more appreciative of our differences. Giving is its own reward!

Hi Sohy,

Wow, beautifully said. I know I have been on the Christian rant in here, and again, as stated, I don't normally discuss religion much with others - a bit of Christian to Christian banter, but not much else. Here, thank you to talkfreethought, I have been exercising, or maybe venting, a bit of stuff that I have had pent up - so my partial apologies about that. I don't normally come out swinging the Christian banner, but in the religious section of talkfreethought, I made an exception.

You remind me of the notion that our beliefs are like the boats that get across the great divide, to the shore on the other side, and once we are there, we can abandon our individual 'boats' - we don't need them any more. Maybe love is the big lesson that we need to learn, and it doesn't matter if it's Buddha, or Christ, atheism, or one of a hundred other ways that can get you there (to the shores of Love).

I would like to believe that, and maybe that is the way it is. Still, in Christianity, we are taught and I guess hung up on the teaching that you need to believe in Jesus, not just to love, to get to this other side. But then if Jesus is God, and God is love, then Jesus is love, and you would think that love alone would be sufficient. He did say:

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”

and

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

So, you would think that love is enough. However, the Bible teaches us

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


So that's the part Sohy, that Christians like me get hung up on - this need for people to believe in the Son. It would seem from the Bible that being loving on it's own is not enough.

For atheists and others who believe that they are loving, but who do not believe the Bible and Jesus etc, you are being told that you will not be saved. And for you, this doesn't feel like something that a loving God would do. I get it. That part doesn't seem fair. As I am not the judge, I will not judge God though - I will gladly leave that to God and believe that he will make the ultimate/best/loving decision.

So, the question is - what does the Bible mean that you need to believe in Jesus also. Why? Why is love not enough to get one into the Christian heaven? . Is someone like you Sohy , who is apparently very understanding, compassionate, loving, but not a Christian - can they be expected to make it to the next level so to speak - to be found 'saveable/worthy' in God's eyes? Is being loving the same as following Jesus? Is this enough, even if you don't believe in Jesus?

If the above analogy with the boats is true, then I guess I am not quite yet to the other side. But maybe you are Sohy, maybe you are.

Thank you,

1I

 

[1ICrying]

I think the answer to that is largely summed up by the notion of treat your neighbour like yourself, and do not do to your neighbour what you would not want done to yourself.

This would encompass all those noble pursuits such as Humility, compassion, love, truth, honesty - all postive traits.

....just no specifics.

So, still, the question 'what is perverse' is not answered.
If my neighbor is a misogynist, he might judge handholding an offensive public display of affection. And this is not hyperbole, there aeee many incels who rage sst any sight of affection.
But if a young member of the faith begins to feel an attraction to something, an act, a gender, a person, a toy, something none of his peers ever mention, how can he find out if it is perverse?
This approach of yours won't help, he has to either mention it to peers or parents, who might judge him harshly, or seek like-minded people who are going to be welcomjng, but a tiny bit biased shen they say it's not perverse.

But ultimately, i cannot understand why a god would judge us on desires that are out of our control....

Hi Keith and Co,

If the Bible says:

To the pure, all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Titus

nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
Romans

then, I don't know why you still need someone to tell you what is perverse. If judging others is wrong, then maybe needing others to judge your actions is also wrong.

It would seem to me that it's between each of us and God. What's perverse for one is not perverse for another. I think God can handle it all - just as he handled our nakedness in the Garden. It was we who flipped out and covered up. That's what God was pissed off at - not our nakedness. He was cool with it all. We were sailing along, beyond the knowledge of good and evil. And that's where we have to get back too. Naked without shame. Perverse without shame. Remember, to the pure, all things are pure.

1I

 

[1ICrying]

I found this:

Can you love your way into heaven?

by Matt Slick

No, you cannot love your way into heaven. Being good is never good enough to please God. God is infinite, holy, majestic, and just. If it was possible to get to heaven by being good, by being loving, then Christ would not have needed to die. Many people do not realize that to be loving is a command of the Old Testament Law. Please consider these two verses:

Deuteronomy 6:5, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

Leviticus 19:18, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD."

Both of these passages are quoted by Jesus in Matt. 22:37 and Matt. 22:39, respectively. We are undoubtedly supposed to love, but keeping the Old Testament command to love God and love your neighbor is not good enough for us to get to heaven. Paul said, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:21). And again, "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law," (Gal. 3:21). Paul clearly tells us that we cannot obtain the righteousness that we need by keeping the Law, which includes loving God and loving your neighbor. So, you cannot love your way into heaven.


Then how do we get to heaven?
We get to heaven by receiving Christ as Savior. We do this by faith, not by faith and any work of any kind. We have to understand that we are sinners and there's nothing we can do that will be good enough before God (Rom. 3:10-12; 6:23). If there were, then Jesus didn't need to die. But Jesus who is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14) died on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1Corinthians 15:1-4). That is the gospel message. By trusting in Christ and believing in the gospel, we are declared right before God by faith (Romans 4:1-5; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). In other words, when we receive Christ by faith (John 1:12), the righteousness of God is given to us (Philippians 3:9). This is called justification. Justification is a legal standing before God. It means that the one who has trusted in Christ by faith, is now declared legally righteous according to the law. Since the law includes loving God and loving our neighbors, those parts of the law must be fulfilled perfectly. It was Jesus who fulfilled the law without failure. So, we receive by faith what Christ did - which includes loving God and loving our neighbor. Therefore, everything we need is found in Jesus.

 

[southernhybrid]

I am truly sorry 1I. I'm sorry that you think we need to believe to be "saved". I totally disagree with your beliefs, but I think you already know that. Perhaps in time, you will come to see things more like I do. I've already spent the first part of my life holding your beliefs. But, then I realized that such beliefs only served to separate people.

Look at how conservative Christianity has invaded the politics in the US, to the point where its been used to promote hatred and division. It's disturbing. I wish all believers would come to terms with what I consider to be a fact. All religion is based on myths, some ancient, some more modern. Myths can have a place in our lives as long as they aren't used to judge or cause division, and as long as they aren't taken too literally. This is what often happens when people cling so tightly to a myth, that they lose sight of the potential harm it causes. Hope that never happens to you.

Hope you find a way to interpret your religion in a way that embraces those who hold other beliefs, without assuming that your God will judge them harshly. Sorry. But the idea that "salvation" is based on a particular belief is just crazy to me. It makes no sense. It's not just. It's not based on reality. It's just based on some emotional experience or desire to be special. I don't need to be special. I just need to try and enjoy my short life by being the best person I am capable of being. I'm at peace. Nature is awesome. It doesn't require any gods to appreciate or experience the emotional high than some get from religion. It doesn't require that I understand exactly how it all started. We all find our own purpose in the short time that we exist. I've found mine. I'm satisfied with the life I've lived, even now that I know that the time in front of me is much shorter than the time I've left behind. This is the only life I will ever have. I have accepted that. Maybe one day you will too.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We were sailing along, beyond the knowledge of good and evil. And that's where we have to get back too.

Why? Why would we even want that, though? That's below childlike.

 

[Learner]

I am truly sorry 1I. I'm sorry that you think we need to believe to be "saved". I totally disagree with your beliefs, but I think you already know that. Perhaps in time, you will come to see things more like I do. I've already spent the first part of my life holding your beliefs. But, then I realized that such beliefs only served to separate people.

Look at how conservative Christianity has invaded the politics in the US, to the point where its been used to promote hatred and division. It's disturbing. I wish all believers would come to terms with what I consider to be a fact. All religion is based on myths, some ancient, some more modern. Myths can have a place in our lives as long as they aren't used to judge or cause division, and as long as they aren't taken too literally. This is what often happens when people cling so tightly to a myth, that they lose sight of the potential harm it causes. Hope that never happens to you.

Hope you find a way to interpret your religion in a way that embraces those who hold other beliefs, without assuming that your God will judge them harshly. Sorry. But the idea that "salvation" is based on a particular belief is just crazy to me. It makes no sense. It's not just. It's not based on reality. It's just based on some emotional experience or desire to be special. I don't need to be special. I just need to try and enjoy my short life by being the best person I am capable of being. I'm at peace. Nature is awesome. It doesn't require any gods to appreciate or experience the emotional high than some get from religion. It doesn't require that I understand exactly how it all started. We all find our own purpose in the short time that we exist. I've found mine. I'm satisfied with the life I've lived, even now that I know that the time in front of me is much shorter than the time I've left behind. This is the only life I will ever have. I have accepted that. Maybe one day you will too.

God made Covenants from far back as Noah:

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Covenants and Commandments STILL STAND . Basically God IS keeping HIS word ... His end of the agreements and cannot break them even if HE regrets them.

Basically ... we will fail them by ignoring the laws and covenants by doing the opposites, even to the extremes:

Isaiah 5:20

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

However ... GOD has put in a clause to the agreements because HE loves us, hence (using the quote below):

I

Then how do we get to heaven?
We get to heaven by receiving Christ as Savior. We do this by faith, not by faith and any work of any kind. We have to understand that we are sinners and there's nothing we can do that will be good enough before God (Rom. 3:10-12; 6:23). If there were, then Jesus didn't need to die. But Jesus who is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14) died on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1Corinthians 15:1-4). That is the gospel message. By trusting in Christ and believing in the gospel, we are declared right before God by faith (Romans 4:1-5; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). In other words, when we receive Christ by faith (John 1:12), the righteousness of God is given to us (Philippians 3:9). This is called justification. Justification is a legal standing before God. It means that the one who has trusted in Christ by faith, is now declared legally righteous according to the law. Since the law includes loving God and loving our neighbors, those parts of the law must be fulfilled perfectly. It was Jesus who fulfilled the law without failure. So, we receive by faith what Christ did - which includes loving God and loving our neighbor. Therefore, everything we need is found in Jesus.

 

[bilby]

We were sailing along, beyond the knowledge of good and evil. And that's where we have to get back too.

Why? Why would we even want that, though? That's below childlike.

I dunno. I am certain that absolute good and absolute evil are not real, so perhaps I am already there.

I don't think that evil exists, at least, not as a descriptor for people.

An act can, perhaps, be evil. And many acts are clearly good. But no person is entirely one or the other.

And yet I see religionists everywhere who claim that this is not the case - that there are good people and evil
people, good guys and bad guys, the saved and the damned.

I am confident that seeing and judging people through this dichotomous lens is a harmful and foolish way of thinking about society and the world.

So maybe that implies that I have achieved what 1I is striving for. I don't have knowledge of good and evil; There's no lookup table in my mind, nor in some external source (such as scripture), which I can use to quickly, simply, and blindly assign an observed action (much less the person who performs that action) into one of these two categories.

Instead I have to discover the context of an action, and use empathy and charity to determine why that action was chosen. And even if, on reflection, I conclude that a given action was deeply wrong, I remain aware that the individual who carried it out is not defined by a single poor choice. There's some good, and some evil, in everyone - to the point where classifying people into either category is a dreadful mistake.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, but i wantbto be able to at least evaluate things for good/bad, benefit/harm, truth/lie.
Adam and Woman were just helpless.

 

[Rhea]

For atheists and others who believe that they are loving, but who do not believe the Bible and Jesus etc, you are being told that you will not be saved. And for you, this doesn't feel like something that a loving God would do. I get it. That part doesn't seem fair.

Well, actually, Half-life, you misunderstand the atheist here.

It's not that we believe it is "unfair," it's that it is just incoherent.

We're not saying your god is doing it wrong and we know better, we're saying that doesn't making any sense at all. It just doesn't make sense. And it all depends on an afterlife of which you have absolutely zero evidence. So that also doesn't make any sense.

You think we're angry or judgmental about your god. But no, we are really just blinking and saying, "and he's what now again?" It's gobbledygook. human sacrifices, saving souls based on adoration of mist. It's just all very weird and not believable.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, actually, Half-life, you misunderstand the atheist here.

It's not that we believe it is "unfair," it's that it is just incoherent.

We're not saying your god is doing it wrong and we know better, we're saying that doesn't making any sense at all. It just doesn't make sense. And it all depends on an afterlife of which you have absolutely zero evidence. So that also doesn't make any sense.

You think we're angry or judgmental about your god. But no, we are really just blinking and saying, "and he's what now again?" It's gobbledygook. human sacrifices, saving souls based on adoration of mist. It's just all very weird and not believable.

But it feels good. It's very emotionally satisfying given a set of conditions. There's something to be learned about such behavior.

 

[abaddon]

But it feels good. It's very emotionally satisfying given a set of conditions. There's something to be learned about such behavior.

I'm interested to see if they can learn at all.

Prognosis: bleak. They're like fish in a fishbowl that can't imagine what it's like outside. And it's a little disappointing because if they can't tailor the message to the skeptical mind, then they're telling a very old and boring message.

They talk as if mythology can appeal to persons who don't have at least one foot inside the mythology. The lack of self-awareness must make imagining other minds very difficult.

1Icrying and Learner talk like if Jesus-belief feels good to them, then it should also have a strong emotional appeal to others. Talk about loving God and Jesus dying and "everything we need is found in Jesus" must be very poignant to a believer. But to my mind, and I would think many other skeptical minds, it carries no more emotional punch as "There's a guy named Bob who wants you to believe in him and love him".

It's clear real fast that a tale of Bob and what he wants is not very interesting. But people who think "Bob says so" has a potent emotional appeal are still kind of interesting, to me, for how alien their way of ... thinking? ... is to mine. How do they go on believing an old and fantastical mythology in the 21st century?

I'm not sure it's wholly a question about religiosity. Half-Life displays what exposure to non-experts spouting propaganda on the internet does to a gullible mind. Learner said the Internet's a blessing while telling how he came to his beliefs, so I suspect he's also a victim of "I found on the internet which ancient superstitions I want to believe". That's interesting behavior, because it undermines the notion that the Internet's a great learning tool. Having a lot of information available (especially when most of it is shit) is useful only to people who are already well-educated in the skill of learning. Which is not very many people.

 

[Tharmas]

"There's a guy named Bob who wants you to believe in him and love him".

BOB IS REAL!! Check out the Church of Subgenius and get some SLACK!

 

[abaddon]

"There's a guy named Bob who wants you to believe in him and love him".

BOB IS REAL!! Check out the Church of Subgenius and get some SLACK!

Yeah, THAT Bob is ok! The Conspiracy had stole my slack but Bob was lurking in my subgenius subconscious.

 

[Rhea]

But it feels good. It's very emotionally satisfying given a set of conditions. There's something to be learned about such behavior.

I'm interested to see if they can learn at all.

Prognosis: bleak. [...]

They talk as if mythology can appeal to persons who don't have at least one foot inside the mythology. The lack of self-awareness must make imagining other minds very difficult.

1Icrying and Learner talk like if Jesus-belief feels good to them, then it should also have a strong emotional appeal to others.

This is exactly the fascination for me, as well. Their complete helplessness in understanding their audience.
But weird in that they don't know that they don't get us, and on those few moments where it seems to get through that they don't understand, they reveal that they don't WANT to understand.

They don't like to ask. They don't like to query. They don't like to follow up.
They just preach, spout, expel, transmit ideas. They misstate the atheist position, and when we helpfully say, "no, that's not what we said," they just pivot to a new topic that they are sending. All send, no receive.

I sometimes wonder if they are all send, no receive because they are a little afraid that they might find the ACTUAL atheist position(s) to be kinda compelling. But I dunno. Maybe it's just an atrocious lack of curiosity.

Meanwhile, we have this forum because we are curious about how they think. We continually ask them, "wait, so can you explain that again? What is it you think about that, and why?"

But you notice they never ask that question, but seem to think they know the answer to it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I sometimes wonder if they are all send, no receive because they are a little afraid that they might find the ACTUAL atheist position(s) to be kinda compelling.

It wouldn't even have to be compelling. They could fear just considering it.

20 years ago, after 9-11, there were a LOT of people wondering how their god, who so loved this nation that he sent us Saint Reagan, could allow godless heathen Satanists to do that.

A Preacher got on TV and said doubt was good, doubt was natural, you had to work thru it to ge healthy. Of course, you had to work all the way thru it and come back to God, but as long as your doubt returned you to God, you were okay.
The message was, or should have been comforting and useful, and fully supported no one actually leaving the flock. But the apologesphere went nuts on his ass. The channels were swamped by people rejecting his message on behalf of true bleevers. Doubt was bad, doubt was weakness, doubt let Satan in, doubt meant the terrorists won.
A true Xian would never doubt, no matter how little they might understand god's ineffable plan of fear, suffering, mass slaughter, and infinite love.

They may be conditioned against actually understanding the atheist POV.

 

[Learner]

But it feels good. It's very emotionally satisfying given a set of conditions. There's something to be learned about such behavior.

I'm interested to see if they can learn at all.

Prognosis: bleak. They're like fish in a fishbowl that can't imagine what it's like outside. And it's a little disappointing because if they can't tailor the message to the skeptical mind, then they're telling a very old and boring message.

I'm skeptical of the thinking above. Do you mean people who are believers now but before have never been outside looking in? I'm a born-again remember?

They talk as if mythology can appeal to persons who don't have at least one foot inside the mythology. The lack of self-awareness must make imagining other minds very difficult.

As if .... is not quite absolutely., but hey, if thats how you like to see it.

1Icrying and Learner talk like if Jesus-belief feels good to them, then it should also have a strong emotional appeal to others. Talk about loving God and Jesus dying and "everything we need is found in Jesus" must be very poignant to a believer. But to my mind, and I would think many other skeptical minds, it carries no more emotional punch as "There's a guy named Bob who wants you to believe in him and love him".

Fair enough pov.

It's clear real fast that a tale of Bob and what he wants is not very interesting. But people who think "Bob says so" has a potent emotional appeal are still kind of interesting, to me, for how alien their way of ... thinking? ... is to mine. How do they go on believing an old and fantastical mythology in the 21st century?

I can be opened minded to Bob. So whats the story?

I'm not sure it's wholly a question about religiosity. Half-Life displays what exposure to non-experts spouting propaganda on the internet does to a gullible mind. Learner said the Internet's a blessing while telling how he came to his beliefs, so I suspect he's also a victim of "I found on the internet which ancient superstitions I want to believe". That's interesting behavior, because it undermines the notion that the Internet's a great learning tool. Having a lot of information available (especially when most of it is shit) is useful only to people who are already well-educated in the skill of learning. Which is not very many people.

Learning is natural if your curious enough! Anyway ... I learned from the internet for example: that there were so-called Christians making fortunes for personal gain. I didin't become Christian because of it, which must be a "surprise" to some here by the looks of it - but stay away from these millionaires I say as a Christian. I wouldn't have known his name if I didn't see it in a video...so to speak. I was able to make some rational differentiation here 'I think' (according to what the theology is to me obviously).

 

[abaddon]

I'm skeptical of the thinking above. Do you mean people who are believers now but before have never been outside looking in? I'm a born-again remember?

It's in the culture. I believed in God before I was born again. It was being "born again" that made me seriously intent on the belief though.

So there are degrees of "outside looking in". I cannot have decided to be "born again" without a groundwork for fuller induction into that mythology being laid down beforehand.

If I were a skeptic as I am now (more totally "outside"), then I would not have found the sermon that led to the born again experience so compelling. So it'd have had the appeal of someone saying "Accept Bob into your heart!"

They talk as if mythology can appeal to persons who don't have at least one foot inside the mythology. The lack of self-awareness must make imagining other minds very difficult.

As if .... is not quite absolutely., but hey, if thats how you like to see it.

In context the "as if" means "with the expectation that".

If you promote that Jesus loves people, you do it expecting they'll find appeal in the idea of Jesus loving them, right?

I can be opened minded to Bob. So whats the story?

But I already told the story of Bob: People are testifying that a guy named Bob exists (so, you don't know he does) and they say that Bob wants you to believe in him and love him (so, he's asking for things you're not likely to give if you don't know the guy personally).

You do this a lot, when you see an analogy to God or Jesus. Talk like the value of the analogy depends on further details. But it doesn't. The whole entire story is not relevant to the point being made.

For example, someone presents an analogy to Jesus or God, maybe the Invisible Pink Unicorn. They're saying God is like the unicorn in that neither have strong supporting evidence. And that's the whole message. But you go "What's the story (of the IPU or whatever the analogy was)?" With the implication that maybe you'd believe it, if only the details were told so you can judge the overall story.

My analogy meant that what Bob wants and what God wants have equal impact on me: I'm totally apathetic to what either wants from me because, from all evidence I've seen, they're made-up tales. That's it, there's nothing more to it.

 

[Learner]

It's in the culture. I believed in God before I was born again. It was being "born again" that made me seriously intent on the belief though.

So there are degrees of "outside looking in". I cannot have decided to be "born again" without a groundwork for fuller induction into that mythology being laid down beforehand.

If I were a skeptic as I am now (more totally "outside"), then I would not have found the sermon that led to the born again experience so compelling. So it'd have had the appeal of someone saying "Accept Bob into your heart!"

I could go along with the underlined above but not quite with the other : They're like fish in a fishbowl that can't imagine what it's like outside. The groundwork , many learn about it .... having some little knowledge of theology, mythology and now even Bob. If one of these is actually true, then there's something that can be recognised by whats "laid out before hand"... Scholars who believe Jesus existed do too.

If you promote that Jesus loves people, you do it expecting they'll find appeal in the idea of Jesus loving them, right?

I agree but there must be quite a few who won't find it appealing when they realise they would have to repent from certain things, give up those particular pleasures, whatever it is, depending.

I can be opened minded to Bob. So whats the story?

But I already told the story of Bob: People are testifying that a guy named Bob exists (so, you don't know he does) and they say that Bob wants you to believe in him and love him (so, he's asking for things you're not likely to give if you don't know the guy personally).

You do this a lot, when you see an analogy to God or Jesus. Talk like the value of the analogy depends on further details. But it doesn't. The whole entire story is not relevant to the point being made.

But this Bob in the analogy must have actually existed, who is acknowledged by the scholars or equavalent who also say Jesus existed, otherwise the analogy seems flawed. Not the same ... or I just don't get it.

For example, someone presents an analogy to Jesus or God, maybe the Invisible Pink Unicorn. They're saying God is like the unicorn in that neither have strong supporting evidence. And that's the whole message. But you go "What's the story (of the IPU or whatever the analogy was)?" With the implication that maybe you'd believe it, if only the details were told so you can judge the overall story.

What's your definition of unicorn, since atheists usually ask that to Christians about God?

Unicorns are real!! And therefore God must be, at least by this analogy.

My analogy meant that what Bob wants and what God wants have equal impact on me: I'm totally apathetic to what either wants from me because, from all evidence I've seen, they're made-up tales. That's it, there's nothing more to it.

Fair point of view.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But it feels good. It's very emotionally satisfying given a set of conditions. There's something to be learned about such behavior.

I'm interested to see if they can learn at all.

Prognosis: bleak. They're like fish in a fishbowl that can't imagine what it's like outside. And it's a little disappointing because if they can't tailor the message to the skeptical mind, then they're telling a very old and boring message.

They talk as if mythology can appeal to persons who don't have at least one foot inside the mythology. The lack of self-awareness must make imagining other minds very difficult.

Yes, that was my point. The religious brain says "I like it and it feels so good, and so I cannot understand how you don't want to do it too." It's a childlike emotional fascination with magic. As a child maybe it's a survival advantage, but as an adult it is a mental limitation. It's a revealing observation to make about the human condition and evolution of the human brain where magic worship morphs into myth and religion. It's all magic, all blissful emotional attachment to dragons.

A corny analogy is to think about Earth and Mars. Earth is alive with life, wet, warm, absolutely fecund when compared to its planetary neighbor. Yet as children they had exactly the same beginnings but turned out so utterly different after billions of years. I think that's how two brains can be different in humans. There are physical reasons two human brains are so different in their perceptions and appreciations. Something stopped happening in that religious brain just like something stopped happening in Mars. Otherwise it would be like Earth, full of life of all kind. Something kept it in a childlike state, something kept it from becoming rational like other adult brains.

From my experience religiosity happens because the brain is acting like it is drugged. Marx was wrong, religion isn't the drug, the drug has already been applied and religion is merely the resulting behavior, if one wishes to use the Marx analogy.

Everyday I pray to the god of shoelaces so that when I die and go to heaven I won't have to tie my shoes anymore. That's why I want to go to heaven because I won't have to concern myself with shoelaces. Everything will be wonderful without such an encumbrance. So why isn't everyone else praying to the shoelace god? I don't understand! Your afterlives could be so wonderful if you'd only let the shoelace god into your hearts! I weep for all of you!