Real Christianity = not being a Christian

reply to post by adjensen

Probably true, and I think my earlier point, that as we grow in our relationship, our will becomes more in harmony with God's, somewhat addresses that, though not entirely, as you point out.

I would be more inclined to agree with this if we understood more about what exactly "God" is. Everything we think we know today about that being, we've been told by man.

I don't exactly trust man's interpretation of anything, or anything man endorses as a reliable authority - especially if it doesn't make sense.

The history books, the physics books, now they make sense. They explain the why and how of everything, and if they don't know, they admit it's still a mystery in progress. But no, our authorities on "God" can't even admit that. They have to pretend they have all the answers, and if there is an answer they don't have, then they don't need it.

Religion is an illusion. Pure and simple. It's a pair of rose-tinted glasses, intended to bring us peace of mind rather than solve conflicts in the world. And the worst mistake was giving mankind the reins, so he could decide where to take it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The history books, the physics books, now they make sense. They explain the why and how of everything

That is most definitely not true. The "why and how" of everything? That's not even remotely close to being correct, never will be, and if you think it true, I suspect that you've never read a physics book in your life.

Religion is an illusion. Pure and simple.

See, that's just a matter of your opinion -- you believe it to be an illusion, and so it is (building, I think on your earlier point that belief breeds conceptual reality,) for you. I, on the other hand, see the positive impact that religion, and a relationship with God, whatever he turns out to be, has had in my life, so I would never even consider that it is an illusion -- for me, it's every bit as real as the table in front of me.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm talking on a basic level, because the Bible can't hold a candle to anything college grade. I didn't think I needed to clarify, but I'm not surprised I had to.

See, that's just a matter of your opinion -- you believe it to be an illusion, and so it is (building, I think on your earlier point that belief breeds conceptual reality,) for you. I, on the other hand, see the positive impact that religion, and a relationship with God, whatever he turns out to be, has had in my life, so I would never even consider that it is an illusion -- for me, it's every bit as real as the table in front of me.

Difference in perspective, which happens in the mind. Reality is all in the mind - you change something in your head, everything outside in the world changes too, because of how you look at it. Do I really need to explain this to you? Because I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

Does no one listen?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Because I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

Then you should stop, because I'm sick of hearing nonsensical statements.

Belief does not form reality, it affects perception of reality, and science doesn't, and can't, "explain everything". The fact that you don't even seem to understand why it can't begins to explain why your grasp of some other basic concepts is so lacking.

reply to post by dominicus

There is still free will on how a baby will react to each and every influence & circumstance

What??!!!!! A baby reacts with an immature brain, and whatever the circumstances offer, the baby will "hard-wire" how to respond!!!!!! This is what results in the ability of the baby (later in life), to form honest attachments; OR, to be hypervigilant to danger; OR to be afraid of a lion coming to eat them.

NO! Those are not FREE WILL reactions! Those are responses (based on survival instincts), not "choices".

yet we don't see any of this the first day, week, month .......of birth, until a later time

To say that babies are "blank slates" is backward. No, they are OPEN SLATES.....and will be influenced by the circumstances into which they are born. Therefore, your argument that "morality" is only available to those children of "church-goers" or the "religious" is wrong.

WHAT?????? Are you crazy??? Where did I ever argue that morality is only available to children of church goers or religious?

My whole post revolves around going back to a time prior to any influence of any churches or religions, so how the heck did you ever jump to that conclusion?

dominicus, thanks for your considerate response.

Nevertheless, I'm sorry but the two first quoted sentences above are incorrect. We DO see "any of this the first day" ..... "week" ............ "month." This is why I asked if you had access to a neo-natal unit. Every single one of them has a very distinct personality, temperament, and tolerance, yes, FROM BIRTH. Then you spend time with them for the next three years, and those distinctive qualities become MORE so.

As for the rest of your presentation, I guess I have misinterpreted your intentions. I agree with you that 'churches' and 'religions' are unnecessary; but to hear you say that (paraphrasing, here): babies are blank slates and the entire scientific community would back me up, is patently nonsense.

Perhaps I jumped from your claiming "blank slate" to "ultra conservative church-goer".....and if so, that is a reflection of my bias as to the modernity of peoples' thinking. If one doesn't know that babies are NOT blank slates, how can their "understanding" of God and whatever be taken seriously?

I see that I misjudged, and jumped to conclusions. My sincere apologies.

reply to post by wildtimes

This is what results in the ability of the baby (later in life), to form honest attachments; OR, to be hypervigilant to danger; OR to be afraid of a lion coming to eat them.

Ok. But on the first day of birth, were a lion to approach the new born, there is still no reaction, or is there? Regardless, with the quote above "later in life" ....still implies a previous point in which none of these things are not yet inherent

NO! Those are not FREE WILL reactions! Those are responses (based on survival instincts), not "choices".

I'm with you. But still a 1 day old does not have these responses. Yeah pain will make a newborn cry, but still there is no idea or sense in what is happening, labels for things, etc

Nevertheless, I'm sorry but the two first quoted sentences above are incorrect. We DO see "any of this the first day" ..... "week" ............ "month." This is why I asked if you had access to a neo-natal unit.

What are some things you notice on day 1, that become prominent in later life?

As for the rest of your presentation, I guess I have misinterpreted your intentions. I agree with you that 'churches' and 'religions' are unnecessary;

I never said they were unnecessary either. While this alone is enough for a separate thread, I would say I see church/religion as something that may have been, and still can function as, branches of study that have to do with spirituality. For example for a cavity we see a dentist, car problem = mechanic, loan needs = bank.

However, as with all portions of society, we find corruption and different levels of honesty in the aforementioned areas of expertise. The thing is, science is not looking for God or the soul. So if I want to satisfy my curiosity about God/Soul things, I am forced to study religions of various sorts.

but to hear you say that (paraphrasing, here): babies are blank slates and the entire scientific community would back me up, is patently nonsense.

When I first studied this branch of psychology, 15+ years ago, the majority view was "blank slate" from my reading, with various other views revolving around nature vs. nurture. Today I would have to back track that all of science would back me up on this. But I'm still rather firm in my own theory that we are all born as blank slates, at least as far as the mind goes.

Perhaps I jumped from your claiming "blank slate" to "ultra conservative church-goer".....and if so, that is a reflection of my bias as to the modernity of peoples' thinking. If one doesn't know that babies are NOT blank slates, how can their "understanding" of God and whatever be taken seriously?

I think we can both agree that a newborn is aware. Everything after that is very complex theoretically.

However, comparing "not knowing that babies are not blank slates" to "how can their understanding of God be taken seriously" is a rather frivolous comparison. If all you've done is study God stuff for the last 15 years, and missed out on the news that researchers are now theorizing that babies are not blank slates, how does that in any way take away from that person's understanding of God?