My Thread of Thoughts

[Data]

Religion/Spirituality

1. Who or what is God?

A god is anyone or anything which is venerated. The Hebrew word and its variations come from a root meaning mighty/strong. The god only need be attributed might that is in some way greater than the one attributing it. In the English the pagan word God, predating Christianity, meant to pour or libate from a root that meant to call or invoke. God isn't a name, it's a title, like King or Queen. Charles is a king, not my King, but King of the Brits. Zeus is a god, not my God but God of the Romans. My God is Jehovah. In the Bible there are many gods. Jehovah, Jesus, Moses, the judges of Israel, the angels, and pagan gods like Dagon, Molech, Baal. Satan, according to the Bible, is the god of this world.

 

[Data]

2. Which is the one true religion?

I don't really think in terms of there being one true religion. I define religion as an (allegedly) strict adherence to a specific set of principles; a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance and repetition. In this sense everyone is religious. There are atheistic and theistic religions. True religion is a subjective term. What one thinks is "true" another might not, so the true religion is a matter of individual choice. I don't think any religion has ever remained true to itself. The Jews, even with Jehovah as their leader, failed. The Christians, with Jesus among them were far from perfect and as Paul foretold, would sacrifice truth for myth (Greek mythos) and fable (Latin fabulas). (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

 

[Data]

3. Is Religion really necessary?

Necessary? Necessary for what? In the above (2.) I define religion as an (allegedly) strict adherence to a specific set of principles; a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance and repetition. In this sense everyone is religious. It isn't a question of necessity, it's a question of behavior. It takes place naturally. Organized religion, I think, isn't necessary but it is the foundation of societies. When you organize behavior, usually it's for control of some sort. The incentive for control, or material gain. Perhaps in the guise of ideology or conformity, which sometimes is deceptively intended to divide and conquer. People always say religion is designed to control, but I believe religion is redesigned to be controlled. The powerful masses are subdued by the far less powerful elite. They, the masses, submit but really in order to do that the elite are limited.

 

[Data]

4. Do you believe in the afterlife?

Yes. I believe in the Biblical resurrection. The meek will inherit the earth and live forever in peace upon it. Adam was created to live forever, without sin, sickness, disease or old age, without natural disasters or threat of animals. He sinned (sin simply means miss the mark, set, in this case, by Jehovah) which resulted in his death and the subsequent death of his offspring. Humanity. Sin equals death. The wage of sin is death. Upon our death we are acquitted of our sin (Romans 6:7) so I don't believe in a literal torment or hell in that sense. Hell is the grave. Those who decide they don't want everlasting life, by rejecting God, judge for themselves to that end. Everlasting destruction. Those who do want everlasting life and act accordingly, judge for themselves to that end. Everlasting life. Those who, throughout history haven't been introduced to the choice, having not judged for themselves for not having known, will be resurrected to judgement. A period of time in which they are given the opportunity to do so. Judgement day. (Acts 24:15)

 

[Data]

5. Would a religious experience be enough to make you a believer or spiritual?

I can answer this from personal experience. No. At least, not as I understand the term "a religious experience." Unless by that you mean intense study and examination, no. I've had experiences with a few supernatural events before and after becoming a believer and they had no effect on me regarding my religious belief or spirituality. I've also had what appeared to be supernatural events that I've explained and were actually completely natural experiences.

 

[Data]

6. Was Jesus a real person or myth?

I believe Jesus was a real person because of the historical evidence presented in the Bible. There are historical references but those aren't terribly significant to me. Some of them are reportedly spurious and some not which begs the question, how reliable is secular history? I, and several atheist friends of mine over the years, find the Bible to be a remarkable example of historical importance. The thing about the Bible is that, unlike secular histories, it is brutally honest about the shortcomings of its subjects. These people aren't presented as infallible heroes, although often taken as such. It doesn't sweep the failures of its subjects neatly under the rug and it isn't propaganda. I think the biggest problem, though, with secular and Biblical histories are the historians. Most of them only repeat propaganda. Here is a further example of Jesus' historicity.

 

[Data]

Philosophy

1. What is your worldview (Christian, atheist, agnostic, neither?) and why?

Weltanschauung!

Everyone has a worldview. Mine isn't associated with any organized paradigm. It isn't stagnant. It doesn't conform to a standard. As Bernard Shaw, Upton Sinclair, and George Orwell put it; All art and literature are propaganda. Knowing, thinking, believing needn't establish dominance one over the other. You don't have to put yourself into a peg or on a pedestal in order to think, believe, articulate or express. You don't have to take it to one extreme or the other.

 

[Data]

2. Do objective morals exist?

If they do, I'd like to see them in practice rather than theory. It's a complicated subject. An example. In modern times a 32-year-old man marrying a 14- or 15-year-old girl is immoral. That was exactly the case with Joseph and Mary. It isn't the norm now because the circumstances are different. Education and career are more important now. Now you have inflation, fractional reserve banking. Then the potential father and husband worked for years as an apprentice, and then could support a family. So, maybe people had a much different perspective. It seems to me more likely that morality is subjective. And are we talking about individual or societal morality?

 

[Data]

3. Does free-will exist?
To me, it's an oddly common subject. If I want to rob a bank I can rob a bank. If I don't want to I don't have to. Someone can make me, but I could still choose not to. Either way I have the consequences. I might like to fly to the moon, but I can't. Since spirit comes from the ancient Hebrew (ruach) and Greek (pneuma) which means an invisible (to us) force producing visible results (the words sometimes translated spirit, sometimes wind, breath, breeze, depending on the context, compelled mental inclination) spirituality, then, is things you can't see but can influence you. Culture, tradition, genetics, ideology, et cetera. Those things can make you do something without you knowing why, what or how. So, to me it seems a silly argument to argue for vs against the existence of free-will.

There is also the theological consideration of Determinism. Which is a sort of pagan bit of nonsense adopted by the apostate church. Surprise.

Here are two articles I wrote in response to that from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. What the Bible Says About Free Will (Determinism) and Do Humans Have Free Will?

 

[Data]

4. Is there a good hybrid theory drawing from both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill?
I have no idea what any of that means. I understand that mankind struggles ever onward in knowledge, including science, theology, philosophy, politics, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics - and I think that's great, but honestly, I've never given it much thought. Especially when it comes to specific schools of thought, tradition, or visionaries in any of those. If I were a visionary the prospect of being labeled and thought of in that way would be repulsive to me, because it probably does more harm than good. It isolates and stagnates knowledge and promotes ideology in its stead. The stuff of intelligentsia and academia. While it may provide some good, it ultimately prevents it. That's the way I see it. So, the theories of Kant and Mill aren't something I think about.