Why (or why not) be Christian? Part 2

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing from this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/5018897-why-or-why-not-be-christian

Anyone welcome to join. 🙂

Our atoms then disperse into a bigger space

That should be easily observable and measurable.

@Lalupalina just as we have a brain which governs our body, I believe God has designed His entire creation to run under His governance. If our individual cells decide to do our own thing and not act under the direction of the brain we get sick and there is suffering as the brain directs the body to tackle the dysfunction. Our individual cells have a nucleus just as we have brains and can start to malfunction. So if we lose our connection to God we are also losing connection with His entire creation and there is suffering and events happen which try to rectify the malfunction. Like creation's immune system.

@Kdtym10

Thanks. Do you see art snd our creative natures as an extension of God or a reflection?

Both/ either.

Who “we” are is something not often contemplated in the west. How we define ourselves is linked to the physical more often than not, job titles, address, name, family, age, wealth. The Eastern philosophies bring this much more to the front.

But it’s a really important question to ask, to look at who we are and our purpose

Lol

Why is someone’s else’s opinion tedious - not everyone will agree with you.

@Parker231, because you seemed so adamant your trust had nothing to do with faith. However you now seem to acknowledge you have a degree of faith in the decisions you make. So apologies. I can get impatient sometimes.

I think that you're using the word 'faith' with a link to god / spirituality whereas the other poster is using the word 'faith' to indicate a strong belief / trust that has nothing to do with god / spirituality.

I know you didn't ask me but using myself as an example, I trust myself and trust my own decision making, I trust my mum always has my best interests at heart, I trust my partner to protect our child... I can think of lots of examples of me trusting myself / others and I'm unsure how that's at all at odds with me being an atheist?

I agree. This seems like a bit of a tangent again... an atheist may have faith in various things, in the sense of trust or a sense of optimism.

@Mustardseed86& @whatsitcalledwhen, I discussed both meanings of the word with the OED definition earlier on in the thread. It's the same idea only what you place the faith in is different.

And it was to illustrate an atheist can still possess(a) faith (of sorts)but not in God...

I think there's a huge difference between having 'faith' and having 'a faith'. To the extent it completely changes the meaning of a sentence.

One implies an overarching belief structure while the other can be applied to an individual situation without the necessity of an overarching belief structure.

@whatsitcalledwhen yes, I agree but that's really getting into the fine detail of a definition there.

I don't think it is a fine detail point though, when speaking to an atheist.

For an atheist, describing their own faith in something is clearly not a reference to god / a religion (which I know are two separate things) so pretty neatly fits the simple definition of trust in something.

So I'm unsure of what can be learned by asking non believers (when it comes to god) whether or not they have faith in themselves or others? It doesn't highlight any hypocrisy or flawed logic if they do. They are just using the word faith in a specific way.

So I'm unsure of what can be learned by asking non believers (when it comes to god) whether or not they have faith in themselves or others? It doesn't highlight any hypocrisy or flawed logic if they do. They are just using the word faith in a specific way.

@whatsitcalledwhen, it draws a connection to something which is a common experience albeit one that is directed differently.

ok then how about putting forward your debate points for Galileo Galilei, or do i just drop the mic now ?

im not sure what your hypothesis is here that you want me to address. May ask an actual question? I’m quite happy to discuss Galileo. As long as you extract yourself from the childish petulant world of Mike dropping because your use of that phase is not boding well.

considering the case of Bruno, and the details of the case at least Galileo is a better case study for the church holding back the development of science

What are you actually asking? Are you asking whether Galileo can be used as proof that the Church was against science as the the case of Bruno didn’t prove that? ( unsure whether you want me to insert image of you dropping a mike - you might not want to)

in a hap hazard way i am trying to show that religion was more a tool of suppression rather than enlightenment as shown with cases of Galileo and Bruno but with Galileo it was more obvious church vs science.

Source : The internet

"In the tumultuous dance between religion and science, the cases of Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno stand out like disco balls in a dimly lit room, casting their bright, erratic light on the clash between enlightenment and suppression. Galileo, with his telescope in one hand and a stubborn streak in the other, dared to challenge the Church's geocentric dogma with his heliocentric ideas. It was a classic showdown of Church versus Science, with Galileo playing the role of the underdog in this cosmic wrestling match.

The Church, with its centuries-old playbook of dogma and orthodoxy, wasn't about to let some upstart astronomer rock the boat. So, they slapped Galileo with the heresy label and put him under house arrest faster than you can say "Copernican revolution." It was suppression in its purest form, a heavyweight institution throwing its weight around to keep the status quo intact.

But let's not forget about Giordano Bruno, the wild card in this game of intellectual poker. Bruno wasn't content with just poking holes in the Church's cosmology; he wanted to blow the whole thing sky high. His vision of an infinite universe filled with countless worlds was like a match to the Church's tinderbox of orthodoxy. They couldn't extinguish his fiery ideas, so they extinguished him instead, burning him at the stake for the crime of thinking too big.

In both cases, religion wasn't so much a beacon of enlightenment as it was a bludgeon of suppression, a tool wielded by the powers that be to keep dissent in check. Galileo and Bruno were just the unlucky souls who happened to wander into the Church's crosshairs, their ideas deemed too dangerous to be allowed to roam free.

Sure, there were moments of enlightenment within religious circles, like flickering candles in a dark room. But when push came to shove, when the Church's authority was threatened, enlightenment took a backseat to suppression. Galileo and Bruno learned that lesson the hard way, their stories serving as cautionary tales for anyone foolish enough to challenge the powers that be."

So what is the origin of that quote - “the internet” is akin to quoting “a book” - once you have done that we can address the outdated conflict model you’re using

Goodness @Kdtym10 you don't half talk to people like you're their primary school teacher!

That post about Bruno and Galileo reads like ChatGPT to me

Possibly appropriate when someone starts a conversation with me with the comment “Mike drop” 😂

My thoughts exactly! Hence me asking for the source. It probably says it all really.

Getting my red pen out...it should have been mic drop.