Choosing a faith

Judas was in all likelihood a revolutionary that wasn't opposed to violent revolution but who saw Jesus as Yahweh's messiah who would miraculously rid them of the Romans. When he came to the understanding that this was not going be the case, he turned on Jesus. He either did this because he saw Jesus as drawing away support for the revolutionary movement, or he could well have thought that by doing this it would cause Yahweh to react.As for the pigs I understand it as a an account of Jesus finding a man with a mental issue. He was not in Jewish territory as Jews wouldn't be keeping pigs or spending time in a grave yard for that matter. "Legion" would be a reference to the many soldiers in the Roman Legions and would represent evil. The OT and particularly Daniel taught that monsters as representing evil came from the sea. The Roman legions represent evil and so, this part at least, is a metaphorical account of evil being driven back into the sea from whence it came.

OK.
A man is having his brain scanned. Two meals are put in front of him and he is to choose one. Does the scan show us which meal he picked.

I don't know that this has been tested. I should tell you that in my case I would be picking both, but that's just me.I can only assume that if the experimental design were robust enough then yes. If they can read brainwaves well enough to control prosthetics then seeing "pizza" or "tacos" in the wave pattern should be child's play.Neuroscientists to develop brain-controlled prosthetic limbs - UChicago Medicine

With practice it appears that they might be able to determine what is being thought. Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan

Big Brother is getting realy realy big ... and scary.

quote:

---

Judas was in all likelihood a revolutionary that wasn't opposed to violent revolution but who saw Jesus as Yahweh's messiah who would miraculously rid them of the Romans. When he came to the understanding that this was not going be the case, he turned on Jesus. He either did this because he saw Jesus as drawing away support for the revolutionary movement, or he could well have thought that by doing this it would cause Yahweh to react.

---

If Iscariot is a corruption of “sicarius”, as it is widely thought to be then Judas was an actual violent revolutionary. The rest is all supposition on your part. We do not see any reference to disagreement between Jesus and Judas on this point in the Bible.

quote:

---

As for the pigs I understand it as a an account of Jesus finding a man with a mental issue. He was not in Jewish territory as Jews wouldn't be keeping pigs or spending time in a grave yard for that matter. "Legion" would be a reference to the many soldiers in the Roman Legions and would represent evil. The OT and particularly Daniel taught that monsters as representing evil came from the sea. The Roman legions represent evil and so, this part at least, is a metaphorical account of evil being driven back into the sea from whence it came.

---

Which supports my point. You couldn’t drive the Roman legions into the sea without violence. Though I think it likely that the entire story originated as a fiction expressing exactly that desire.

I'm skipping the first part of your reply, which only seems to repeat your same claims: that I'm ignoring something.But I'm not - we just don't find anything more. Which means your explanation/desire/need for "a why from a creator" is ineffective and unreasonable.
If we look for it, everywhere and forever - and don't even find anything hinting that it could possible be linked to reality in any way - it doesn't exist.This isn't ignoring it.
This is identifying that it doesn't exist.It just so happens that "things that don't exist" treat this reality exactly the same way as things that are ignored. So I can understand your confusion. Except, of course, things being ignored can be shown to exist. So - do that - and you'll have a point.The last part of your post gets into religious vs atheist for generosity and such. I'd like to discuss that further, as we haven't done so in this discussion yet: I completely agree with this.Your link, however, seems to make the same mistake most make when supporting the case that the religious are more generous.It seems to equate "generosity" with "giving money to non-profit organizations." When, well, this isn't the case, is it? There's more to being generous than just giving your money to non-profits - especially if one's self uses the services of those same non-profit orgnaizations.Check this out (2013): Are Religious People More Charitable, Generous, and Altruistic than Atheists?It starts off by acknowledging that American religious states give more to charity than non-religious areas and states.Then it's noted that "almost half of the charitable donations given by American households are to churches."

quote:

---

Donations to one’s own church are tax-deductible. But that does not make them charitable, in the older sense of the word. They are membership dues for a social club. They do not benefit the wider community, as would, for example, donations to the Red Cross.

---

Donating to one's own church - where one uses the church for personal social gatherings and community - is like donating/paying for one's one membership in any other social gathering/community setup - like a pickle ball team or card-playing group.And the additional science was a study where the took all sorts of religious people (including atheists) and gave them "imaginary money" to donate as they deemed fit. They were told that whoever they donated to, the money would triple for the recipient:Each and every select religious group (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists) did in fact donate more than atheists in only one condition: when they were donating to a recipient who was from the same religion as their own.This, of course, is incredibly telling:

quote:

---

Religious institutions sometimes exploit and redirect empathic or generous impulses, converting them into a means of simply feeding the beast more dollars or adherents. My friend Kent recently received a mailer titled, “They’re Crying Out for Bibles. Please Help!” It told of one “dear elderly” woman in China who had been waiting for a Bible all her life. When Haiti was devastated by an earthquake, a different missionary organization used the disaster to raise funds and ship Haitians much needed solar-powered Bibles (instead of actual food/supplies that would actually help.)

​

At the time of the Asian Tsunami, a Seattle mega-church sympathized on its website and then advised parishioners to pray for those affected, give to their church-building ministries (aka conversion activities) in India, and give to Mars Hill Church. A hip newspaper published by the same church, advises that God want you to give first and foremost to your home congregation. The formula has worked beautifully for them.

---

The same study showed that when the recipient was non-religious or from some other religion - there was no notable difference in the amount of money provided to such recipients from any group. That is, all things being equal - we're all just as generous as each other.And the conclusion:

quote:

---

There are three points to be concluded from the research above:

• The argument that religious people are more generous than the non-religious is considerably weak — except perhaps for monetary donations to people of the same religion
• atheists, unlike religious people, do not discriminate when donating time, energy, or money
• atheists tend to give just as much non-monetary resources away as religious people, though there are instances where atheists are more charitable, such as how they may not give as much money to charities but are more willing to pay higher taxes in the US, which benefit the whole country — as opposed to donations which benefit a specific (i.e., religious) group.

---

And, another article as well: Atheists more generous than religious when helping others: study

quote:

---

A new study by the University of California, Berkeley, suggests atheists and agnostics are more willing to help other people than those who identify themselves as religious.

​

The reason for this difference, the study found, is because atheists are driven by emotions, such as compassion, as opposed to religious people, who may be more influenced by "doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

---

Being good for the sake of being good? Can't beat atheism!

"I believe". [sigh] Like I say, nothing we can say can penetrate the shield of personal belief. Why are you here?

Good point, but money donated to a church is not just to keep the place going. Our little church was heavily involved in sponsoring 3 Syrian refugee families and maintaining them for a year, We have fund raisers to support the local food bank, hospital and a site that services the requirements of seniors. We have events for the community. Through our local church we donate to the national Anglicn fund that send aid around the world.Of course that is just about the money. Parishoners also donate large amounts of their time for various charities. We have helped guys just out of prison to get re-establishedHere is an interesting that doesn't actually support either of our positions. Study finds differences in how secular and faith-based charities operateMaybe atheistic charity involves getting recognition and approval. Who knows. Maybe Christian charity is about getting in good with God for some reward in the next life. I question whether either of those can be considered to be charity, and of course this won't show up in any set of statistics.

There's no such thing as an atheistic charity. Us atheists just give to charity.

Nothing I can say can penetrate the shield of personal belief. Why are you here? It cuts both ways.Actually I'm interested in the relationship between science and Christianity and when I joined the forum years ago that worked pretty well, but not so much now. It seems to have become simply a debate between entrenched beliefs.Incidentally in response to a couple of posts my views are not at all tentative. My beliefs are fluid to a point as I'm not a literalist and see the Bible as being written by people with all of their biases and even agendas. As I said in a post to you recently it isn't important to me whether or not God created something from nothing but I do believe that God is responsible for life. I accept that God might be either a singular intelligence or a collective but consistent intelligence. I see the future on Earth as being completely open and completely unknowable, I simply see the next life as being a reality and that this life will have an impact on our life to come, but I don't worry about it and simply focus on God's request to love the other in this life.I do see the church as in a period of reformation being led by people such as Polkinghorne, Wright and even Rob Bell. One of the big changes is the effort to understand scripture in context of the time and culture in which they were written and this is being aided by the discovery of more ancient material such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hopefully we move away from trying to understand the Bible in the context of our own time and culture.I don't get to London any more. I miss it.

And you also never learn. How many times has it been explained to you that atheism ISN'T A BELIEF. I will change my mind instantly if you can provide me with evidence. There is no equivalence between our positions. It's obviously important for you to believe that, but it is not true. I can change my mind about anything. Can you? This is just Anglicanism and it's simply a way of the Church trying to stay relevant in societies that are rejecting it. Making up a gentler belief system isn't working though is it? People are abandoning it in two directions; in the West it's towards atheism, agnosticism and general disinterest and in the developing countries (and USA) it's moving towards fundamentalism.Justin Welby, your 'pope', has just been rejected by 25% of the Anglican community over blessing homosexual partnerships. ('Blessing' for god's sake! How primitive is that?). The history of your belief system is riddled with schism because it's based on nothing but what individuals prefer to believe at any one time.Justin Welby rejected as leader by conservative Anglicans over same-sex blessings - BBC NewsFar from being reformed by gaining understanding of historical context, your Church is being whittled away from both ends.

quote:

---

Actually I'm interested in the relationship between science and Christianity and when I joined the forum years ago that worked pretty well, but not so much now. It seems to have become simply a debate between entrenched beliefs.

---

You mean like your attempt to equate your misunderstanding the selfish gene with a watered down version of Original Sin which removed all the Christian elements? You think THAT “worked well”?And really if you won’t admit your many errors that’s really your fault - not the fault of people who prefer the truth.

quote:

---

Incidentally in response to a couple of posts my views are not at all tentative

---

Nonetheless your desperate attempts to prop up your beliefs - and the fact that they go firmly against any commitment to the truth - do seem to indicate that you are very insecure in your faith.

Are you sure?Here is one of the first results from your article:

quote:

---

Among religious and secular charities that provide health or human services, secular charities and other FBOs are more likely than congregations to serve only the general public rather than their own members and to target their services to low-income groups. However, secular charities are more likely than congregations or other FBOs to receive government contracts and to have completed a recent evaluation of program outcomes or impacts.

---

Which seems to align with what my article was saying: That secular institutions will provide help to everyone equally, and religious groups are much more likely to discriminate and only help those who are a part of their particular religion. If you'd like to agree that being religious does not change one's actions and ideas any more than being atheist does - then I certainly agree.
The only reason I started down this route was because you seemed to indicate that being religious provided a certain outlook on life that wasn't obtainable otherwise. This is clearly bogus.

My jury is still out on this one. I know that I have become more extreme in some ways and more gentle in other ways. Had I finished studying psychologyinstead of pursuing the spiritual path, I would be nowhere near as wise. Smart, maybe. But never wise.