There is no proof that God exists

[Steve 2.0]

If John was going to fabricate the resurrection story, why would he use a lowly woman to discover (be the first) the empty tomb? That would not fit in with or advance the lie. In fact it would hurt the cause and make it less believable.

Actually, in my opinion, it makes a lot of sense. Jesus' whole message was to the downtrodden and who was more downtrodden than women. Some TV show I watched about Mary actually thought that she may have played a more important role in the early church than the gospels indicated.

[Ken]

Actually, in my opinion, it makes a lot of sense. Jesus' whole message was to the downtrodden and who was more downtrodden than women. Some TV show I watched about Mary actually thought that she may have played a more important role in the early church than the gospels indicated.

But none of that fits with the idea that religion is just there to subjugate women

[Steve 2.0]

But none of that fits with the idea that religion is just there to subjugate women

Good point. Actually, I (as usual) didn't make my point well. And there is a lot difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Old Testament. I still believe that religion has been used by most people in charge to control those not in charge.

(I'm either very complex or very simple........you can decide which. )

[Steve 2.0]

There's still no proof God exists.

[Gregg]

There's still no proof God exists.

I did not present this as proof (as I mentioned in my post). I presented it as a piece of evidence that made me pause in the early going of my journey.

[Gregg]

Actually, in my opinion, it makes a lot of sense. Jesus' whole message was to the downtrodden and who was more downtrodden than women. Some TV show I watched about Mary actually thought that she may have played a more important role in the early church than the gospels indicated.

But if, as some say, John had an agenda other than telling the truth, it would not be wise to use a woman (who could not even testify in court) as the one to first discover the empty tomb. If it was a lie he would have picked himself or one of the other disciples to give maximum credibility. It may make sense to us in hindsight, but not in the times that the event happened.

I personally believe women had a lot to do with the start and success of early Christianity.

[Steve 2.0]

I did not present this as proof (as I mentioned in my post). I presented it as a piece of evidence that made me pause in the early going of my journey.

Sorry, I didn't explain that one. I was just going all the way back to the first post of the thread. It was funny in my head. (a weird place, indeed)

[Gregg]

Sorry, I didn't explain that one. I was just going all the way back to the first post of the thread. It was funny in my head. (a weird place, indeed)

I was going to visit the subjugation issue you just mentioned it first. Plus there was some other things along the way.

Big difference what the Jesus believed and what the disciples believed in the early goings.

[B-Fly]

I was going to visit the subjugation issue you just mentioned it first. Plus there was some other things along the way.

Big difference what the Jesus believed and what the disciples believed in the early goings.

And big difference, presumably, in what Jesus did and taught and what churches, governments, armies, individuals have done purportedly in his name. I generally don't have a problem with the teachings of Jesus as either reported or invented in scripture. I think the humanistic precepts and reforms that he promoted were generally very positive and much needed. Where we ultimately part ways, of course, is on the concept that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of G-d, and that Jesus is now one with G-d and can receive and answer prayers, etc. So separate the ethics and the humanism from belief in a deity or deities, and the corresponding ideas of worshipping and obeying and praying to a deity and its purported impact on both real world occurrences and a supposed afterlife for the human soul, and I'm basically left with the Golden Rule and a set of moral and pseudo-legal precepts that I feel are far better delineated and justified within secular humanism and related ethical philosophies.

[Gregg]

And big difference, presumably, in what Jesus did and taught and what churches, governments, armies, individuals have done purportedly in his name. I generally don't have a problem with the teachings of Jesus as either reported or invented in scripture. I think the humanistic precepts and reforms that he promoted were generally very positive and much needed. Where we ultimately part ways, of course, is on the concept that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of G-d, and that Jesus is now one with G-d and can receive and answer prayers, etc. So separate the ethics and the humanism from belief in a deity or deities, and the corresponding ideas of worshipping and obeying and praying to a deity and its purported impact on both real world occurrences and a supposed afterlife for the human soul, and I'm basically left with the Golden Rule and a set of moral and pseudo-legal precepts that I feel are far better delineated and justified within secular humanism and related ethical philosophies.

Ok, let's go with your no deity for a moment. Who or what is the highest authority in this world? What gives them this authority. Has that changed /evolved through the ages?

We certainly can't blame evil on religion. Religion may end up being a tool for evil. Religion may have been invented for a need to survive. It like most other tools can be used by evil for evil. I use the term evil as defined by things we do not like or that will kill us or hurt or make us feel bad. In the cold world of evolution there is no evil. Just surviving and evolving.

[B-Fly]

Ok, let's go with your no deity for a moment. Who or what is the highest authority in this world? What gives them this authority. Has that changed /evolved through the ages?

We certainly can't blame evil on religion. Religion may end up being a tool for evil. Religion may have been invented for a need to survive. It like most other tools can be used by evil for evil. I use the term evil as defined by things we do not like or that will kill us or hurt or make us feel bad. In the cold world of evolution there is no evil. Just surviving and evolving.

There is no natural authority in the world, unless you want to count Gravity, Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic Forces. Authority over human life is established and sustained by humans, whether through physical or psychological coercion or through the consent and input of the governed (or some combination thereof). Good and evil are also human constructs created and designed by humans and influenced by evolution and human history, including religions, philosophies and legal codes. Them being human constructs doesn't make them "false" or "meaningless". I put a lot of stock in the moral/ethical/legal norms, precepts and codes that humans have developed and debated over the course of human history. I think our survival and evolution have been positively impacted in many ways by the development of societies and their corresponding moral/ethical/legal norms, precepts and codes.

[Steve 2.0]

There is no natural authority in the world, unless you want to count Gravity, Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic Forces. Authority over human life is established and sustained by humans, whether through physical or psychological coercion or through the consent and input of the governed (or some combination thereof). Good and evil are also human constructs created and designed by humans and influenced by evolution and human history, including religions, philosophies and legal codes. Them being human constructs doesn't make them "false" or "meaningless". I put a lot of stock in the moral/ethical/legal norms, precepts and codes that humans have developed and debated over the course of human history. I think our survival and evolution have been positively impacted in many ways by the development of societies and their corresponding moral/ethical/legal norms, precepts and codes.

I've been on Facebook too much. Where's the Like button?

[Sour Masher]

Even if one concedes proof of God, which I don't, there is certainty no proof of a specific construct of the nature of such an ultimate creator/power being anything at all like what is promised in any religion.

[Sour Masher]

As an undergrad, I attended a talk that promised to "prove the existence of God." It was way oversold. The mathematics professor, who was a Christian, spent over an hour simply rehashing one of the oldest and simplest proofs--that there must be an uncaused cause, something that was there to start it all in motion. But 1. that premise has holes, and 2. even if you accept it, that proof says absolutely nothing about the nature of God. It merely argues that something had to be there to push over the first domino.

Constructs about the nature of a higher power are entirely human made, but as B-Fly says, that doesn't make them meaningless. On the contrary, religion still defines the realities of billions of people, who use its tenants as a foundation on which to build and live their lives. Many live better lives because of these constructs. Of course, building these constructs and committing to them so intensely leads to all sorts of conflicts and horrors too, so there is that. And, there is the fact that many pretend to be devote, but really don't actually follow the path they proclaim is true, and live a life of hypocrisy, guilt, fear, etc.

[Gregg]

There is no natural authority in the world, unless you want to count Gravity, Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic Forces. Authority over human life is established and sustained by humans, whether through physical or psychological coercion or through the consent and input of the governed (or some combination thereof). Good and evil are also human constructs created and designed by humans and influenced by evolution and human history, including religions, philosophies and legal codes. Them being human constructs doesn't make them "false" or "meaningless". I put a lot of stock in the moral/ethical/legal norms, precepts and codes that humans have developed and debated over the course of human history. I think our survival and evolution have been positively impacted in many ways by the development of societies and their corresponding moral/ethical/legal norms, precepts and codes.

If there is no God, man is the authority over the world. Good or evil designed by humans as you say doesn't make them false or meaningless, it doesn't make them true either. And it is only meaningful because "we" say it is. The rest of the animal kingdom does not care about feelings, ideas, beliefs. We cannot reason with them. We can control them and train them.

Taking religion out of this statement for a moment man is the only creature on earth that has the true ability to believe. Everything good and evil comes out of that ability. No scientific advancement can be explained without someone believing it could happen. All of our meaningful and true human constructs started with a belief unfortunately so did the "bad" ones.