No worries!

Sorry for the hiatus, Simon,
I’ll have to leave any meaningful engagement on this for another week or so (last assignment etc.!).

Yes, certainly they’d think about them. But I think the fact that most people stay with their birth religion is a datum demonstrating that religious choice is anything but objective. The problem is exactly that “hear[ing] about other beliefs” is simply not as simple a matter as you portray, because what one makes of what one hears is very skewed by constructivism.
Certainly, I agree, that some people DO change religion. They hear of christianity or buddhism or islam and it strikes a chord and they convert. But the vast majority do not.

I started out, so to speak, with an objectivist worldview. I thought that a spade was a spade and logic and all that. My not-so-minor revelation occured in eventually realising the truth in constructivism and that people do what they do for a reason. This has helped me have much more empathy for people because I realise that if I was in their position, I’d be doing and thinking the same thing. This certainly doesn’t mean that there is no good or bad doings or thinkings, just that these doings and thinkings are more understandable and controllable. This has changed me from a person who saw no good in religion or in, say, people who commit crimes, to understanding well what motivates religious adherence, and in seeing the point in rehabilitation and the path to reduction in crime.

The uncreated argument is the same as we had in the other thread.

Simon,
Obviously, people will be less likely to compare (i.e.) their parents beliefs with other beliefs if they’ve never even heard about other beliefs. But once they do hear about other beliefs, other worldviews, other understandings, etc. they can then think about them.

Once the emotion-sceptical uber-rationalist hears a compelling case that emotions/intuitions might be carriers of truth, she might begin to question whether or not she agrees. Once the emotionalistic, anti-rational mystic hears about how logic and reason can enrich and sharpen things, he can then begin to apply that reason/logic to his beliefs, perhaps even seeking out other reason-ers to reason with, etc.

And as for an un-created monotheistic God, we don’t just ‘claim’ it, but rather reason that if everything is not 1) an illusion, 2) eternal, then it is 3) created (either self-created or ‘other’-created); and that an ‘other’ who could create all created things must obviously, logically be ‘un-created’.

Dale,

A large majority of people stay with the religion they were born into. So, which is more sensible to believe? That souls who can think straight are mostly born into christian homes and so stay with christianity, and souls that can’t are born into other religions? Or that most people judge the veracity of their religion in non-objective ways? No contest.

Hahaha. No, sorry, just because christians claim that god is “un-created” does not mean that “un-created” has any meaning, much less that the concept is somehow inaccessable to polytheism.

Honestly, which do you think is more reasonable, polytheism (many gods, raising the ‘who made these gods’ question, etc.) or monotheism (an un-created maker of all things)? You can do it!

Simon,
Maybe you’re just a product of an environment which has conditioned you to think that environments have an unbreakable hold on people’s minds!
Experience, culture and upbringing certainly influence us, but they do not (nor could they) make it impossible to compare religions based on what we know. I find your notion that religions cannot be compared to be simply bizarre. People compare and/or change religion/beliefs all the time.

And I don’t follow what you mean at all when you say that the other-than-logically-’good’ reason(s?) people make their decisions about religion is(are?) the abstract but undeniable truth we discussed… ((It sounds like something you’d hear from someone who is taking their bizarre notion that “religions cannot be compared” far too seriously, perhaps because they can’t be bothered doing it?))

sorry,

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)

No, I have to say I think you are completely wrong. Can you not see that you are a product of your environment? Do you think that people of other religions would come to the same conclusions as you in your narrowing down method? Of course not! They would exactly mirror your reasoning and conclude their own religion best. :0 It is simply not possible to compare religions for our choices are hugely determined by our experiences, culture, upbringing.
What I believe I do know is that people make their decisions about religion for very good reasons. Not very good in the ‘logical’ sense, but in the sense that there is a reason for their choices. And those reasons are the very abstract but undeniable Truth to which you and I have refered. That there is disagreement between religions is merely a result of differing frameworks, different constructions*, gifferent languages with which this Truth is expressed.
That is my opinion.

I believe that virgin birth, water to wine, stars endowing his birth with import(astrology) are common themes that were attributed to Jesus which are (I believe) not Jewish and probably pagan.

On God ‘speaking’ to individuals:
All I’m saying is that if Jesus embodies Truth, this would in no way contradict what I take to be two biblical and rational ideas, namely a) that some/much content/teaching of various religions are harmonious with one another, whilst b) some content is irreconcilable.

I heartily recommend actually thinking about and comparing religions. For example, my thinking/comparing has led me to believe that monotheism (in some form, initially) is infinitely more rational than all polytheistic/pantheistic belief systems. Whilst still leaving room for respect/appreciation for things/concepts/teachings/etc. within other non-monotheistic religions, that narrows things down to a handful of ‘religions’; of which three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are related by the persons Abra(ha)m and Moses. Then you compare those… etc., and so on. It can be done, and it’s all an on-going process.

Jesus being influenced by Jewish ‘culture’ is not exactly controversial, and as for Roman/pagan influence, would you care to demonstrate what specific points of influence are so ‘obvious’ to you?