Why (or why not) be Christian?

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing the "Will you make it to heaven?" threads started by @VincitVeritas which have become a more wide-ranging discussion about matters of faith, Christian belief.

Hope to see you on here when the last thread runs out of space! And new posters welcome too.

We've recently been discussing the evidence for God, the soul and life after death, and debating what constitutes reliable evidence in this context.

Also some talk about whether it's accurate to say humans are 'sinful' and why/why not, some discussion of Paul and the validity of his writings and status as an apostle, how the Bible was formed (and why other writings didn't make the canon) the basis of morality/ethics, whether Jesus's message was intended for an excusively Jewish audience, the meaning of Christ (or Messiah), church tradition and different denominations, end times and probably more I've forgotten!

But experience shows us we often are not treated the same way? We often address peoples needs that would never be our own. So what are we getting out of say donating money for food in famine areas?

@Lalupalina oh and you never commented on what you thought about my post here:

@Lalupalina so from an evolutionary perspective individuals with divergent characteristics should be protected. Since the environment changes more rapidly than evolution those divergent characteristics might be suddenly be the most well suited to the new environment. Since belief/thought drives behaviours which then in turn drive physiology it follows those with divergent perspectives should be protected.

I'd be interested to know what you think. 🙂

@Kdtym10 If the MP did what you said he did then he was probably acting ultra vires and an investigation is warranted. The admissions criteria sound dodgy too. I'm assuming you won't share what school you're talking about? Incidentally, I'm sure you didn't mean this- but your post sounds a little racist.....

Of course. The poster @Parker231 has stated they don’t believe they are selfish because they act in the interests of others out of love. Therefore, this would indicate that there are selfish needs and other, distinct drivers a - something bigger than themselves by definition as they claim not to be acting out of self interest..

@Kdtym10 thanks for clarifying. Yes, I see your point. I think a lot of people find it difficult to call themselves 'selfish' because it can have negative connotations.

It is my strong view that being selfish is absolutely compatible with being kind and helping and loving to others. As I said earlier, it's a win win situation.

so from an evolutionary perspective individuals with divergent characteristics should be protected. Since the environment changes more rapidly than evolution those divergent characteristics might be suddenly be the most well suited to the new environment. Since belief/thought drives behaviours which then in turn drive physiology it follows those with divergent perspectives should be protected.

@heyhohello sorry for not responding earlier.

I don't think it would be very effective to keep all those divergent characteristics just in case they might come in handy one day.

Much more efficient to only keep those physical or behavioural characteristics that helps an organism to survive in its environment.

There is no 'plan' involved in this process.

Sorry I meant efficient (rather than effective)

Sorry that first sentence should say efficient rather than effective

Sorry for the double post

Much more efficient to only keep those physical or behavioural characteristics that helps an organism to survive in its environment.
So how would you discern that?
There is no 'plan' involved in this process.
So, are you saying the discernment is intuitive? What do you think are the origins of this intuition?

@Lalupalina

An MP, representing a vast and diverse group of people, with many and varying religious beliefs and cultural beliefs, should not in any way be expressing personal religious beliefs. It should be unacceptable in this day and age, in a democratic and secular society. There should be a complete separation of state and church. History has clear and many examples when the legislature is influenced and ran by individuals and groups that are religion focused.

There are many places, in the world right now, where women’s rights, are being systematically eroded, striped, because of religious zealots, elected members of the legislature, who have been “expressing” their religious values, to the detriment of not only women and girls, but society at large. Live and live but I don’t want your belief in your god, and anyone’s else’s religious beliefs, to determine my rights as a human being, as woman - especially given the total patriarchal nature of most religions.

You have the right to worship, but your most heart felt beliefs as derived from that worship, should never ever have legislative influence on my life. Complete separation of state and church!!

Meant to say that History has clear and many examples of when the legislature is influenced, and ran by individuals and groups that are religion focused, with wide ranging, terrible consequences.

@heyhohello I have always assumed that evolution was random and unpredictable but recent research has shown this not to be so;

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240108125801.htm

@NotSoBetty - I agree with separation of church and state. I was lucky enough to go through an education system that kept them separate so no religious education in school.

@Kdtym10 An MP should vote in the best interests of his constituents.

@Lalupalina,

I have always assumed that evolution was random and unpredictable but recent research has shown this not to be so;

Makes total sense to me and I think fits in with how I was talking about belief/thinking affecting behaviours and behaviours affecting physiology on a micro level and then on a macro population/ data set / species level affecting evolution. This study will simply discover some of the detail in this.

The trouble is a little/incomplete knowledge is a rather narrow perspective in terms of making decisions based on the discoveries. Which links in with what I was saying about protecting divergent characteristics and what you were saying about 'efficiency'. Who knows what use divergent characteristics might have in the future with environmental changes? On a very basic level it could be akin to people who go to heavily on doing a Marie Kondo on their wardrobes! 😉

Thanks - yes I understand your perspective although it greatly differs from mine, my issue is with a poster denying they are selfish then simultaneously denying they see something greater than self. It’s a lack of clarity on this point I was debating.

This conversation seems to have gone on a bit of a tangent but does anyone want a second thread? I can start one or someone else can. This is nearly full.

I’ve answered your questions many times - hard to keep explaining when you don’t except any other opinion.

@Lalupalina also firs in with how evolution is retrospective and the 'slave to sin' idea. If someone becomes victim to their genetic disposition instead of overcoming them then their behaviour will reinforce those genetic dispositions.

Fits in

Thank you - I agree with very little I’m reading but it’s interesting

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/5024776-why-or-why-not-be-christian-part-2

But I really don’t understand how you are combining the two positions. Saying you’re acting selflessly yet don’t believe in anything greater than you. I’m merely asking for clarification on that. If you can point me in the direction of where you’ve clarified that it would be appreciated

I’ve clarified it numerous times now so am thinking you’re either being sarcastic or just failing to acknowledge a different opinion.

.